Next Article in Journal
Establishment of a Single-Oocyte Culture System for Pigs and Its Validation Using Curcumin as a Model Antioxidant for Oocyte Maturation
Previous Article in Journal
Heat Shock Differentially Compromises Embryonic Development and Gene Expression in a Mouse Embryoid Body Model System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analgesic and Gastrointestinal Effects of Morphine in Equines
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Effect of Parasitic Infections on Hematological Profile, Reproductive and Productive Performance in Equines

1
College of Agriculture and Biology, Liaocheng University, Liaocheng 252000, China
2
Yili Kazak Autonomous Prefecture Livestock General Station, Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Yili 835000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2025, 15(22), 3294; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15223294
Submission received: 8 October 2025 / Revised: 7 November 2025 / Accepted: 12 November 2025 / Published: 14 November 2025

Simple Summary

This comprehensive review examines how parasitic infections compromise equine health across multiple biological systems. The manuscript systematically evaluates parasitological diversity in equines, encompassing protozoans, helminths, and ectoparasites, and their multifaceted consequences. Key areas addressed include hematological disturbances, impairment of male and female reproductive function, pregnancy complications including abortion risks, and deterioration of animal-derived food products. The review integrates current knowledge on transmission pathways, diagnostic methodologies, and therapeutic interventions while highlighting zoonotic risks associated with equine parasites, particularly through meat and milk consumption. By synthesizing 217 peer-reviewed publications spanning 2000–2025, this work identifies critical knowledge gaps and emphasizes the necessity for integrated parasite management strategies to safeguard equine welfare, enhance production efficiency, and protect public health.

Abstract

Equines play a crucial role in global food security, economic development, and recreation, particularly in regions such as Central Asia, parts of Africa, and South America. However, parasitic infections significantly impact their health, productivity, and reproductive performance, leading to economic losses and reduced animal welfare. This review synthesizes the effects of parasitic infections, including protozoan, helminthic, and ectoparasitic species, on equines. These infections cause hematological alterations like anemia, leukocytosis, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia, compromising overall health and resilience. Protozoan parasites, such as Trypanosoma spp., Theileria equi, and Babesia caballi, directly affect semen quality and fertility by causing testicular lesions, orchitis, and hormonal disruptions. Helminths like Cyathostomins and Strongyles reduce nutrient absorption, impairing productivity, while some protozoan species can cause abortion through transplacental transmission. Zoonotic parasites, including Sarcocystis spp. and Toxoplasma gondii, pose a human health risk through contaminated meat and milk consumption. Despite the effectiveness of conventional anthelmintics, emerging biological control methods like Duddingtonia flagrans (BioWorma® and Bioverm®) show promise. However, the development of standardized herbal anthelmintics and vaccines is hindered by limited efficacy validation, complex parasite biology, and inadequate funding. The need for better diagnostic tools and sustainable treatments remains critical for the long-term sustainability of the equine industry.

1. Introduction

Equines play a multifaceted and indispensable role in human livelihoods across the globe, contributing significantly to food security, economic development, and recreational activities [1,2,3]. In many regions, particularly in Central Asia, parts of Africa, and South America, equine milk serves as a valuable source of nutrition, being rich in proteins, vitamins, and minerals, while also possessing medicinal properties that are highly valued in traditional medicine [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Similarly, equine meat production represents an important protein source in various cultures and contributes to household income in pastoral and agricultural communities [10,11,12,13,14]. Beyond food production, equine skin and hides are essential raw materials for the leather industry, providing durable materials for clothing, footwear, and various handicrafts [15,16,17]. While equines make substantial contributions to human livelihoods, their health and productivity are significantly compromised by disease burdens, particularly parasitic and viral infections, which pose major constraints to their optimal performance and welfare.
Parasitic infections are widespread in equines, posing a significant threat to their health and productivity, with far-reaching consequences on reproductive efficiency and product quality [18,19]. The infections frequently induce significant hematological disruptions, including polycythemia, anemia (mild, moderate, or severe), leukocytosis (mild, moderate, or severe), leukopenia, and platelet abnormalities like thrombocytopenia and, rarely, thrombocytosis. These changes, along with physiological, stress, or inflammatory leukogram variations, collectively impair health and performance [20]. Beyond these systemic effects, emerging evidence suggests that parasitic burdens critically influence reproductive efficiency, semen quality, and fertility in equines [21,22], while also altering the quality and yield of milk [23]. The presence of these parasites reduces the nutritional value of the meat, making it less desirable for consumption [24].
The hematological changes associated with parasitism, such as those caused by Equine parasitic infections like Trypanosoma evansi, Theileria equi, and Babesia caballi, often result in anemia, reflected by reduced red blood cells (RBCs), hematocrit (HCT), and hemoglobin (Hb), alongside increased mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), indicating altered red blood cell morphology [25,26,27,28]. Leukocyte changes vary by parasite and infection stage, with common thrombocytopenia in piroplasma infections and shifts in monocytes, eosinophils, and lymphocytes [26,27]. Such hematological disturbances compromise oxygen delivery, exacerbate metabolic stress, and impair physiological resilience, ultimately reducing work capacity, reproductive performance, and production efficiency in affected animals.
In male equines, parasitic infections may directly or indirectly impair testicular function and disrupt spermatogenesis, leading to compromised semen parameters such as reduced motility, viability, and concentration [29,30]. While in females, parasites such as Trypanosoma evansi cause chronic parasitic infections, which can disrupt Vaginal/Vulvar Hemorrhages, estrous cycles, and conception rates [30,31]. While this study in cattle demonstrates that nematode infections (e.g., Ostertagia) reduce milk production by disrupting growth hormone (GH) and IGF-I levels [32], in equine Sarcocystosis, the muscle tissue is affected, thereby reducing the nutritional value of the meat [24]. Thus, parasitic infections in equines not only disrupt hematological parameters but also impair reproductive efficiency in males by compromising semen quality and in females by altering estrous cycles, conception rates, and overall fertility, ultimately diminishing breeding success.
This review outlines the specific impacts of parasitic infections on equine semen quality, milk composition, meat yield and safety, as well as their crucial implications for pregnancy outcomes in equids. Understanding these multifaceted effects is vital for formulating effective parasite control strategies that not only reduce economic losses and improve animal welfare but also identify research gaps and guide improved management approaches to enhance equine health and productivity.

2. Methodology for Literature Search

This review systematically investigates the impact of parasitic infections on hematological alterations and their consequences for reproductive performance, pregnancy outcomes, and milk and meat production in equines. To ensure comprehensive coverage and scientific rigor, a structured literature search was conducted across four major databases—PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The search targeted peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2025, thereby encompassing both classical foundational studies and the most recent scientific advances. Relevant studies were identified using specific keywords, including equine parasites, hemoparasites, gastrointestinal nematodes, hematological changes, semen quality, stallion fertility, equine pregnancy, abortion, milk production, meat quality, and zoonotic transmission. Reference lists of key papers were also screened manually to identify additional relevant studies not captured in the initial search.
A total of 350 records were initially retrieved. After careful screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts against the eligibility criteria, 257 articles were finally included in this review. Articles were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure methodological consistency and scientific rigor. Inclusion criteria encompassed original research articles and review papers focused on equine parasitic infections, hematological alterations, reproductive efficiency, productivity traits, and zoonotic implications. Studies addressing diagnostic, therapeutic, or control strategies were also included. Exclusion criteria comprised conference abstracts, book chapters, unpublished data, non-indexed or non-peer-reviewed sources, and non-English publications.

3. Parasitological Classification of Equine Parasites and Their General Effects

Parasitic infections in equines represent a significant constraint on hematological profile, health, productivity, and reproductive performance [19,26,33,34]. These parasites can be systematically classified into three major groups: protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites [35,36], each exerting distinct impacts on hematological health, reproductive efficiency, and productivity [19,26,33,34]. Each group comprises species with distinct pathogenic mechanisms that disrupt hematological balance, weaken the immune system [37,38], and interfere with reproductive physiology, ultimately reducing productivity [39,40], work capacity [40], and overall productivity [24]. Understanding their taxonomic classification and zoonotic potential is crucial for developing effective control strategies and safeguarding both animal and public health.

3.1. Protozoan

Protozoan parasites are single-celled organisms that can infect equines in various organs, including the blood, gastrointestinal system, and muscles [35,41,42,43]. Some of the most significant protozoan parasites in equines include Trypanosoma spp., Theileria spp., Babesia spp., and Sarcocystis spp. [19,44,45,46]. Trypanosoma evansi, the causative agent of surra, induces severe anemia, fatigue, weight loss, and immune suppression in equines, significantly impairing their health, reproductive performance [47]. Theileria spp. and Babesia spp., both protozoan parasites transmitted by ticks, cause piroplasmosis in equines, leading to anemia, fever, jaundice, thrombocytopenia, and impaired fertility, which collectively reduce the animal’s overall health and performance [48,49]. Coccidiosis, caused by the protozoan Eimeria spp., is an occasional gastrointestinal infection in horses. It can lead to diarrhea, poor growth, and malnutrition, particularly in young horses, impairing nutrient absorption. This infection significantly affects equine health, reducing productivity and leading to economic losses in equine husbandry [50,51,52,53]. These protozoa can cause a variety of health issues, from mild illness to severe systemic infections. They are known to cause anemia, immune suppression, and oxidative stress, which significantly impact the overall health and performance of affected animals.

3.2. Helminths (Nematodes, Trematodes, Cestodes)

Helminths, or parasitic worms, are among the most common parasites in equines. These worms include nematodes (roundworms), trematodes (flukes), and cestodes (tapeworms) [35,54,55,56]. Among trematodes, Fasciola hepatica infection has been reported in equines, causing hepatic damage, anemia, and reduced productivity [57,58]. Filarial worms such as Setaria equina may inhabit the peritoneal cavity, scrotum, or spermatic cord, occasionally inducing orchitis, edema, and granulomatous inflammation that can compromise reproductive health [29,59]. Another study also reported that in South Korea, Setaria digitata has been identified as the principal etiological agent of equine neurological ataxia, with aberrant larval migration into the central nervous system causing eosinophilic meningoencephalomyelitis [60]. Parasitic infections, particularly those caused by Cyathostomum and large Strongyles, impair equine productivity by inducing anemia, weight loss, gastrointestinal disorders, and reduced nutrient absorption, ultimately compromising animal performance [39,40,61]. Strongylus vulgaris, known as the equine bloodworm, is one of the most dangerous gastrointestinal parasites, causing severe damage to the intestines, leading to colic, anemia, weight loss, and potentially life-threatening conditions like intestinal rupture [62]. Parascaris equorum infection in equines can cause respiratory signs during larval migration, poor growth, and malnutrition due to impaired nutrient absorption [63]; however, its main clinical manifestation is acute small intestinal obstruction (ascarid ileus), which may lead to severe colic and intestinal rupture if not managed promptly [64,65]. Anoplocephala perfoliata causes colic and induces pathological reactions at its attachment site, including hyperemia, mucosal thickening, and necrotic ulcers, which is why it is the only species linked to clinical diseases in horses [35,66]. Helminthic infections are widespread in equine populations, and their effects can be severe if left untreated, often leading to diminished health and productivity.

3.3. Ectoparasites and Vector-Borne Parasites

Ectoparasites and vector-borne parasites play a critical role in the transmission and pathogenesis of many equine parasitic diseases. These parasites include arthropod vectors (such as ticks, mites, flies, and mosquitoes) and the pathogens they transmit, which collectively contribute to dermatological issues, systemic diseases, and significant economic losses in equine operations [35,67,68,69]. Among these, the main insect vectors associated with Setaria digitata transmission are mosquitoes, particularly species of Aedes, Culex, and Anopheles, which act as intermediate hosts carrying infective larvae during blood feeding. Although ticks are not directly involved in the life cycle of S. digitata, other biting flies such as tabanid flies (Tabanus spp.) and stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) may serve as mechanical vectors for other equine parasitic or blood-borne infections [60,70,71,72,73]. Beyond their direct effects, such as skin damage and irritation, these parasites serve as vectors for bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, exacerbating their impact on equine health and productivity [27,35,67,68,69,74]. Ectoparasites significantly impair meat quality and carcass value. Tick and lice infestations cause skin lesions that downgrade hides, while botfly larvae (Gasterophilus intestinalis, G. nasalis) migrate through oral and gastrointestinal tissues, causing ulceration, reduced weight gain, and compromised carcass condition [75,76,77]. Ectoparasites and vector-borne diseases not only affect equine health directly but also complicate the control of parasitic infections by facilitating the transmission of other pathogens.

4. Effects of Parasitism on Equine Hematological Profile

Hematological parameters serve as important indicators of parasitic burden in equines, reflecting both direct parasite-induced damage and host-mediated immune responses [78,79]. Horses are susceptible to over 60 parasitic infections, such as nematodes, hemoparasites, intestinal parasites, and ectoparasites, which can significantly alter hematological parameters and impact overall health [80]. The most clinically relevant parasites, their associated diseases, and their hematological effects are summarized in Table 1.
Parasites such as Babesia caballi, Theileria equi, Theileria haneyi, and Trypanosoma evansi are major causative agents of hematological disturbances in equines. These infections commonly result in anemia characterized by reductions in red blood cell (RBC) count, hemoglobin (Hb), and hematocrit (HCT) due to hemolysis, as well as alterations in white blood cell (WBC) populations [25,47,81,82]. For instance, the intraerythrocytic parasitism caused by Babesia caballi in horses leads to hemolysis, which manifests clinically as severe hemolytic anemia, reduced RBC counts, and secondary hyperbilirubinemia (Camino et al., 2019), while Theileria equi and Theileria haneyi trigger erythrocyte damage combined with immune dysregulation, resulting in leukocytosis, mild anemia, and oxidative stress that further disrupt hepatorenal biomarkers [81,82]. Infections with Trypanosoma evansi (surra) similarly result in anemia with reduced RBCs, Hb, and HCT, alongside lymphocytopenia, monocytopenia, eosinopenia, and decreased antioxidant enzyme activities such as glutathione (GSH), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) [25,47]. These findings highlight that hemoparasitic infections primarily compromise erythrocyte integrity and antioxidant defense mechanisms, leading to varying degrees of anemia and systemic oxidative stress in affected equines.
Hematological alterations are also reported in equines infected with Theileria annulata, a hemoprotozoan parasite, and bacterial pathogens such as Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma marginale, and Neorickettsia risticii, which are key contributors to the broader equine infectome [83,84,85,86]. A. phagocytophilum causes equine granulocytic anaplasmosis (EGA), an emerging tick-borne disease that induces fever, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and anemia due to granulocyte infection and immune-mediated hemolysis [84,87]. A. marginale infection is associated with erythrocyte destruction, anemia, and leukocytosis, whereas Ehrlichia spp. produce lymphocytosis and thrombocytopenia, collectively leading to substantial hematological and biochemical imbalance [88,89,90].
Donkeys exhibit anemia characterized by decreased hemoglobin and erythrocyte indices, alongside compensatory increases in hematocrit and monocyte counts, reflecting species-specific immune modulation. In contrast, horses, the infection induces leukocytosis and shifts in erythrocyte indices, consistent with hemolytic anemia [83,85,91]. Although Theileria annulata primarily infects bovines, recent molecular evidence has identified its occurrence in equines, where infection has been associated with elevated lymphocytes and MCH in horses, and increased lymphocytes and RBC counts but reduced hemoglobin and MCV in donkeys, indicating anemia and immune activation [83,84]. Similarly, T. annulata infection induces elevated lymphocytes and MCH in horses, with donkeys showing increased lymphocytes and RBC count but reduced hemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume (MCV), indicating anemia and immune activation [83,92].
Furthermore, equine besnoitiosis is caused by Besnoitia spp. presents with clinical signs such as skin lesions and hematological abnormalities, including anemia, leukocytosis, eosinophilia, and lymphocytosis, and hypoalbuminemia, findings consistent across donkeys and cattle infected with related Besnoitia species [93,94,95,96]. Collectively, these hematological alterations reflect both parasite-specific and host-specific responses, underscoring the diagnostic value of blood profile changes in identifying and managing equine parasitic infections.
Gastrointestinal parasites pose significant challenges to livestock health and productivity, leading to substantial economic losses through increased morbidity, treatment costs, and reduced performance [97,98]. Among these, gastrointestinal nematodes, particularly Strongylus species, are known to induce hematological alterations such as decreased hemoglobin (Hb), packed cell volume (PCV), and red blood cell (RBC) counts, reflecting mild anemia [99]. These changes arise from the parasites’ hematophagous nature and their interference with nutrient absorption and erythropoiesis [100,101]. In small ruminants, infections caused by Haemonchus contortus, Strongyloides spp., Moniezia spp., and liver flukes like Fasciola hepatica have been shown to significantly disrupt hematological and biochemical profiles, resulting in anemia, metabolic imbalance, and diminished productivity [102]. Additionally, Strongyles, Eimeria, and Moniezia infections in goats are associated with reduced Hb, PCV, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), with the most severe effects observed in young animals and during the winter season [103]. Despite these well-documented impacts, there remains a critical need for species-specific, seasonally focused studies in equines to fully elucidate the pathophysiological mechanisms and develop targeted control strategies against gastrointestinal parasitism.
Table 1. Hematological effects induced by parasitic infections in equines.
Table 1. Hematological effects induced by parasitic infections in equines.
ParasiteParasitic NatureDisease/ConditionEffects on Host Hematological ProfileReferences
Trypanosoma evansiProtozoan hemoparasiteSurra
(Trypanosomosis)
Reduced RBC, HCT, and Hb (anemia); lymphocytopenia, monocytopenia, eosinopenia; oxidative stress[25,47]
Theileria annulata & Anaplasma marginaleT. annulata: Hemoprotozoan parasite
A. marginale: Obligate intracellular Gram-negative bacterial pathogen
Theileriosis & Anaplasmosis (tick-borne)Donkeys: anemia with decrease ↓ Hb and erythrocyte indices, increase ↑ hematocrit & monocytes; Horses: leukocytosis with altered RBC indices (hemolytic anemia); A. marginale specifically → Horses: ↓ RBCs/monocytes, ↑ WBCs/lymphocytes; Donkeys: ↑ monocytes/hematocrit, ↓ Hb/MCHC[83,85,91,104]
Theileria equi/Babesia caballi/Theileria haneyiIntraerythrocytic protozoanEquine Piroplasmosis (EP)Leukocytosis, mild anemia, hyperbilirubinemia; chronic carriers show oxidative stress and hepatorenal dysfunction[81,82,105,106]
Theileria annulata & Anaplasma marginaleHemoprotozoan parasite (T. annulata); Obligate intracellular Gram-negative bacterium (A. marginale)Theileriosis & Anaplasmosis (tick-borne)Donkeys: anemia with ↓ Hb and erythrocyte indices, ↑ hematocrit & monocytes; Horses: leukocytosis with altered RBC indices (hemolytic anemia); A. marginale specifically → Horses: ↓ RBCs/monocytes, ↑ WBCs/lymphocytes; Donkeys: ↑ monocytes/hematocrit, ↓ Hb/MCHC[83,85,91,104]
Theileria annulataTropical TheileriosisProtozoan (Apicomplexa)Horses: increased lymphocytes, MCH; decreased RBCs, MCV
Donkeys: increased lymphocytes, monocytes, RBCs; decreased hemoglobin, MCV, MCH (anemia)
[83,104]
Besnoitia spp.BesnoitiosisProtozoanMild anemia; leukocytosis; eosinophilia; lymphocytosis; hypoalbuminemia; increased alkaline phosphatase[93]
Anaplasma
phagocytophilum
Obligate
intracellular Gram-negative bacterium
Equine
Granulocytic
Anaplasmosis
(EGA)
Thrombocytopenia; leukopenia; anemia;
mediated hemolysis
[83,84,85]
Strongylus spp.nematodes;Equine strongylosis (Strongylosis)Anemia (reduced hemoglobin, PCV, RBCs); impaired erythropoiesis due to nutrient competition[99,100,101]
Strongyles, Eimeria, MonieziaGastrointestinal parasites (nematodes and protozoa)Parasitic enteritis in goatsReduced hemoglobin, packed cell volume (PCV), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH)[103]
Haemonchus contortus, Strongyloides spp., Moniezia spp., Fasciola hepaticaGastrointestinal nematodes and trematodesParasitic infections in small ruminantsAnemia, metabolic imbalance, and disrupted hematological and biochemical profiles[102]
Fasciola hepatica (Liver Fluke)Zoonotic trematodeEquine (Fascioliasis)Anemia: Decreased RBC count and hemoglobin levels.
- Immunosuppression: Reduced leukocyte and lymphocyte counts.
[107]
Strongyles, Eimeria, MonieziaGastrointestinal parasites (nematodes and protozoa)Parasitic enteritis in goatsReduced hemoglobin, packed cell volume (PCV), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH)[103]
↓ = decrease; ↑ = increase.

5. Consequences of Parasitic Infections on Reproductive Parameters

5.1. Effects of Parasitism on Equine Semen Quality

Parasitic infections are one of the primary health problems that hinder equine breeding and production, leading to substantial economic losses [108]. Trypanosome infections, particularly Trypanosoma equiperdum (dourine), directly impair semen quality in stallions by inducing orchitis, sperm abnormalities, and reduced motility. Chronic infections such as Surra (Trypanosoma evansi) and Nagana (Trypanosoma. brucei/vivax) further compromise fertility through systemic wasting and immunosuppression [109,110]. Trypanosoma congolense infection in jacks impairs semen quality by inducing anemia and oxidative stress, which reduces testicular oxygenation, while hormonal disruption is characterized by decreased testosterone and increased prolactin, disrupting spermatogenesis and impairing semen quality [111]. Setaria equina, though usually asymptomatic in body cavities, can localize in the scrotum and spermatic cord, causing orchitis, edema, and necrosis changes that indicate a potential to impair spermatogenesis and semen quality despite lacking direct evidence on semen parameters [112].
Additionally, while of the evidence on trypanosomiasis comes from ruminant studies, the detrimental impact of T. vivax on reproduction, manifesting as reduced fertility, abortions, and agalactia, highlights the broader implications of trypanosomiasis across host species [113,114]. In bulls, T. vivax reduces libido and increases semen volume without affecting sperm concentration or motility [115]. Recent studies have shown a strong association between trypanosomiasis (caused by Trypanosoma evansi in camels) and hormonal alterations, as well as testicular lesions [116,117]. Furthermore, larvae of the nematodes Habronema spp. and Draschia megastoma can cause ulcerative granulomas on the penile and preputial mucocutaneous junctions in stallions, potentially leading to penile prolapse and reproductive disorders [118,119]. However, there is still a need for more research to explore the direct impact of these infections on semen quality in equines, particularly concerning hormonal and testicular changes. Understanding the full scope of these parasitic effects is crucial to improving breeding management and reproductive success in equines.

5.2. Effects of Parasitism on Equine Pregnancy

Pregnancy success is a critical determinant of reproductive efficiency and economic viability in equine breeding programs [120,121]. Parasitic infections can compromise pregnancy through direct fetal invasion, placental damage, systemic illness in the mare or jenny, or indirectly via hematological and metabolic disturbances [44,122,123]. Molecular evidence has demonstrated the transplacental transmission potential of protozoan parasites such as Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis neurona, detected in placental tissues and amniotic fluid, suggesting their role in abortion and reproductive failure [124,125]. Microsporidial infections caused by Encephalitozoon spp., although infrequent, have been linked to placentitis and abortion in mares [122,126,127]. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for further epidemiological and experimental studies to elucidate the prevalence, pathogenic mechanisms, and reproductive impact of protozoan and microsporidial infections in equines, along with the development of effective diagnostic, preventive, and control strategies. The effects of these parasites on semen quality and pregnancy are summarized in Table 2.
Equine piroplasmosis, caused primarily by Theileria equi (formerly Babesia equi) and Babesia caballi, is a significant tick-borne disease affecting horses worldwide, including in Egypt [128]. Theileria equi, in particular, is a major cause of abortion in endemic areas, with transplacental transmission resulting in the birth of infected foals that may develop clinical disease [129,130]. This parasitic infection leads to systemic illness, anemia, and reduced reproductive capacity, significantly affecting fertility in mares and causing economic losses. Infected mares may experience abortion, and foals born to infected mares may develop neonatal piroplasmosis [44,129,131]. In endemic areas, T. equi is recognized as a major cause of abortion and economic loss in equines [106,129,132,133,134]. Theileria equi is the major cause of equine abortions in endemic areas [129]. Additionally, Neospora hughesi has been confirmed as a cause of equine abortion, with tachyzoites transmitted transplacentally, inducing severe lesions such as necrotizing pneumonia, myocarditis, hepatitis, and placentitis, leading to fetal death [135]. Despite these findings, the mechanisms of transplacental transmission and the factors influencing abortion risk in naturally infected mares remain poorly understood, creating a significant research gap that needs to be addressed for improving reproductive management in endemic regions.
Other parasites, including Neospora caninum, a major cause of abortion in cattle, has been reported to induce reproductive and neurological disorders in horses [33,34]. Halicephalobus spp. represent an emerging concern in equine reproduction, as first confirmed cases demonstrated their ability to cross the placenta, directly infect the fetus, and induce repeated abortions [136]. Furthermore, Free-living amoebae, such as Acanthamoeba hatchetti, have been associated with equine placentitis, potentially transmitted via mechanical transport by setae or localized vascular invasion [137]. Moreover, intestinal parasites in donkeys, including Strongyles, pinworms, trichoStrongyles, ascarids, flukes (Fasciolidae), and tapeworms (Anoplocephalidae), can cause digestive disturbances, weight loss, colic, and, at high burdens, reproductive problems [138,139]. These findings highlight the broad spectrum of parasitic infections that can compromise equine fertility and emphasize the need for integrated parasite control strategies.
Table 2. Equine parasites and their effects of parasitism on equine semen and fertility.
Table 2. Equine parasites and their effects of parasitism on equine semen and fertility.
ParasiteParasitic NatureDiseaseEffects of Parasitism on
Equine Semen/Fertility
References
Trypanosoma congolenseHemoparasite (blood protozoanTrypanosomosis↓ Testosterone, ↑ Prolactin, anemia, oxidative stress → impaired spermatogenesis[111]
Neospora hughesiProtozoanEquine abortionTransplacental infection causes fetal death; it can reduce reproductive efficiency and fertility in mares[135]
Trypanosoma equiperdumExtracellular hemoparasite(Equine) DourineOrchitis
Sperm abnormalities
Reduced motility
[109,110]
Trypanosoma vivax,Hemoparasite (extracellular)TrypanosomiasisReduced fertility, abortions, agalactia, impaired reproductive activity in males and females[113,114,115]
Habronema spp./
Draschia megastoma
Nematode larval stagePenile/preputial granulomasPain, mating difficulty, penile prolapse
infertility risk
[118,119]
Toxoplasma gondiiObligate intracellular protozoanDonkey/Toxoplasmosis, reproductive dysfunctionabortion,[140,141]
Neospora caninumProtozoan parasiteHorses/NeosporosisAbortion, fetal death, reproductive loss[142]
Encephalitozoon spp.MicrosporidianPlacentitis, AbortionCauses placentitis and subsequent abortion[122,126,127,143]
Encephalitozoon cuniculiMicrosporidianNecrotising Placentitis,Reported in a case leading to necrotising placentitis and abortion at the final stage of gestation[126]
Babesia caballiProtozoan parasite, tick-borne (Rhipicephalus spp., Amblyomma spp., Dermacentor spp.)Equine PiroplasmosisTransplacental infection, abortion, or birth of infected foals (may show disease signs)[129,130]
Theileria equi Equine PiroplasmosisMajor cause of equine abortions in endemic areas; transplacental[129,130,138]
Neospora hughesiProtozoan, an intracellular parasiteNeosporosisCauses equine abortion via transplacental tachyzoite transmission; induces necrotizing pneumonia, myocarditis, hepatitis, and placentitis, resulting in fetal death[135]
Acanthamoeba hatchettiFree-living amoebaPlacentitisCan compromise pregnancy[137]
↓ = decrease; ↑ = increase.

6. Parasitic Consequences on Productivity (Milk & Meat)

Parasitic infections can substantially impair the productivity and hygienic quality of equine-derived products, directly impacting public health and marketability [144,145,146]. In dairy donkeys, higher cyathostomin burdens eggs per gram (EPG > 1000) impair performance by reducing milk lactose and quantity, while elevating milk urea and pH. This trend is consistent with parasitology surveys, which link high cyathostomin prevalence to compromised milk production at the farm level [23,147]. Gastrointestinal nematodes, particularly Strongyles, are highly prevalent in dairy donkeys and likely in mares, where they compromise host health, reduce milk yield, and alter milk composition through nutrient competition and chronic inflammation [148]. Endoparasites such as Toxoplasma gondii are of particular concern, as they can contaminate donkey milk and meat, posing a zoonotic risk upon consumption [149,150]. The trematode Fasciola hepatica, which infects the liver and bile ducts of equines, causes reduced milk yield and compositional changes, including lowered butterfat and protein content [151,152,153]. While in dairy cattle and other livestock there is evidence that ectoparasite burden (especially ticks and biting flies) can lead to reduced milk yield and altered milk composition [154,155,156]. However, findings remain inconsistent, with some studies reporting no significant impact on milk parameters [157], indicating a need for controlled, longitudinal studies to clarify the magnitude and variability of productivity losses caused by liver fluke infection in equines. The overall effects of these parasites on milk productivity are summarized in Table 3.
In northern Kazakhstan, horses infected with Sarcocystis bertrami and Sarcocystis fayeri exhibited muscle inflammation and dystrophic changes, which adversely affected meat quality and demonstrated the impact of parasitic infestation on the nutritional and commercial value of equine meat [24]. Trichinella spp. infections in horses, though often subclinical, can reduce meat quality and have a clear zoonotic significance [158]. Beyond equines, several parasites in livestock species provide valuable comparative insights into productivity losses. In ruminants, Trypanosoma vivax infection reduces herd productivity through weight loss, diminished milk and meat production, and elevated mortality rates, accounting for up to 33% of livestock deaths in Ethiopia and reducing milk yield by 45% [159,160]. Economic losses are further amplified by bovine besnoitiosis, caused by Besnoitia besnoiti, which results in mortality, prolonged recovery, and reduced milk output [161,162,163]. While in dairy cattle and other livestock, there is evidence that ectoparasite burden (especially ticks and biting flies) can lead to reduced milk yield and altered milk composition [154,155,156]. Importantly, parasitic infections weaken host immunity, increasing susceptibility to secondary bacterial or viral infections, thereby compounding productivity losses [164]. Despite these recognized impacts in ruminants, corresponding large-scale epidemiological data on productivity losses in equines remain scarce, representing a critical gap for targeted control strategies.
Parasitic infections also compromise meat quality in equines and other livestock through direct tissue damage, visible lesions, and biochemical alterations. In Yunnan Province, the high seroprevalence of T. gondii in horses and donkeys raises concerns for meat safety, as consumption of infected horse meat, particularly raw meat from imported sources has been linked to severe human toxoplasmosis [141,144,145]. Among equine meat pathogens, Sarcocystis spp., especially S. bertrami and S. fayeri, are the most detrimental, forming cysts in muscle tissue that degrade nutritional value, alter texture, and present a zoonotic hazard [24,165]. Similar productivity and quality losses occur in cattle due to Echinococcus granulosus, Fasciola spp., Taenia saginata, and Sarcocystis spp., which lead to organ condemnation, reduced marketable meat, and economic losses [166,167,168]. In sheep, Sarcocystis infection alters flavor metabolite profiles, increasing bitterness and sourness while reducing desirable aromas due to disruptions in lipid and amino acid metabolism [169,170]. Despite evidence of substantial deterioration in meat quality, systematic studies quantifying the economic cost of these changes in equines are lacking. There is an urgent need to develop effective parasite control strategies to prevent zoonotic transmission, protect public health, and ensure the sustainability of the equine industry.
Table 3. Equine parasites and their consequences on milk and meat quality.
Table 3. Equine parasites and their consequences on milk and meat quality.
ParasiteParasitic NatureDiseaseEffects of Parasitism on Milk and Meat QualityReferences
Strongyles (e.g., Cyathostomum spp., Strongylus spp.)Gastrointestinal nematodesStrongylosis
causes anemia, weight loss,
and poor body
condition
Indirectly reduces milk yield and alters composition by impairing nutritional status and metabolic balance.[148]
Sarcocystis bertrami & Sarcocystis fayeriProtozoan parasites forming sarcocysts in muscle tissueSarcocystosisCause muscle inflammation and dystrophic changes, reducing meat quality and potentially affecting animal productivity[24]
Cyathostomins spp.Gastrointestinal nematodesLarval
Cyathostominosis
Causes severe intestinal damage, weight loss, and emaciation, leading to poor body condition and reduced meat quality.[39,40]
Strongylus spp. (Strongyles)Nematode
intestinal roundworm)
StrongylosisCauses unthriftiness, anemia, colic, diarrhea, poor weight gain, the poor weight gain and body condition imply reduced meat quality and lower overall productivity.[61]
CyathostominsGastrointestinal nematodes (small Strongyles)CyathostomiasisHigh burdens of eggs per gram (EPG >1000) reduce milk lactose and quantity, increase milk urea and pH, leading to compromised milk production at the farm level[23,147]
Toxoplasma gondiiProtozoan parasite (zoonotic)ToxoplasmosisContamination of milk and meat; zoonotic risk; potential public health hazard[149,150]
Theileria equiTick-borne protozoanEquine
piroplasmosis
Causes acute infection leading to abortion in mares; economic losses in equine breeding[106,129,132,133]
Fasciola hepaticaTrematodeFasciolosisReduced milk yield, lower butterfat and protein content; economic losses due to liver condemnation[151,152,153,157]
Trypanosoma vivaxProtozoanTrypanosomiasisReduced milk and meat production, weight loss, mortality; significant herd productivity losses[159,160]
Besnoitia besnoitiProtozoanBovine besnoitiosisReduced milk production, prolonged recovery, weight loss; economic losses[161,162,163]
Sarcocystis bertrami, S. fayeriProtozoanSarcocystosisMuscle cysts cause reduced nutritional value, altered texture, and zoonotic hazard[24,165]
Fasciola spp. (in cattle)TrematodeFasciolosisLiver condemnation, reduced meat yield; economic losses[167]
Taenia saginataCestodeCysticercosisVisible cysts in muscle; meat condemnation; economic loss[168]
Sarcocystis spp. (in sheep)ProtozoanSarcocystosisChanges in flavor profile: increased bitterness/sourness, reduced desirable aroma; biochemical changes in muscle[169,170]

7. Zoonotic Relevance

Some parasites possess zoonotic potential, thereby threatening human health through direct contact with infected animals, contaminated environments, or the consumption of contaminated milk and meat products [171,172]. The consumption of equine products is common in Eastern European and Asia countries [173,174]. Among the pathogens, Sarcocystis spp. and Toxoplasma gondii have been reported in equine meat and milk in several countries [150,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188]. Consumption of raw or undercooked equine meat containing tissue cysts of Sarcocystis spp. has been implicated in food poisoning incidents in Japan, with the parasite releasing sarcotoxins that can significantly affect both human and animal health [177]. Furthermore, a survey in the United States detected Sarcocystis antibodies in 6.9% of horses, indicating that their meat could be a potential source of zoonotic infection [189]. Equine Parasites and their zoonotic Potential are described in Table 4.
Similarly, Toxoplasma gondii has been identified as another zoonotic concern in equines. T. gondii antibodies were detected in 6.4% of donkeys in the US, suggesting that both donkey milk and meat could be sources of human infection [150]. Supporting this, Mancianti et al. (2014) [149] detected T. gondii DNA in the blood (13.6%) and milk (6.8%) of seropositive donkeys in Italy, demonstrating that tachyzoites can be excreted in milk. These findings indicate that consumption of raw donkey milk or meat may constitute a plausible route of zoonotic transmission to humans [149]. These findings suggest that the consumption of raw donkey milk or meat may be a potential route for zoonotic transmission to humans. The zoonotic risks posed by these parasites underscore the need for rigorous food safety measures, particularly in regions where raw equine products are consumed.
The public health significance of equine toxoplasmosis has been reported in multiple countries. In France, human cases were described by Elbez-Rubinstein et al. (2009) [190] and Pomares et al. (2011) [145] reported three clinical cases linked to atypical T. gondii strains, likely acquired through ingestion of raw horse meat imported from Canada and Brazil. In Canada and Brazil, viable T. gondii has been detected in slaughtered horses, highlighting these countries as potential sources of contaminated meat entering European markets. In the Middle East, Al-Khalidi and Dubey (1979) and Shaapan and Ghazy (2007) reported isolation of viable T. gondii from horses [191,192]. In Europe, Evers et al. (2013) confirmed the presence of T. gondii in slaughtered horses [193], and Paştiu et al. (2015) [194] documented both seroprevalence and viable parasite isolation in Romanian horses. These findings collectively underscore the importance of considering equine toxoplasmosis as a public health concern, particularly in regions where horse meat is consumed [194]. Nevertheless, further investigations are required to determine the parasite load in horse meat and to confirm its potential as a significant source of human infection.
Table 4. Equine Parasitic Zoonotic Potential.
Table 4. Equine Parasitic Zoonotic Potential.
ParasiteHost AnimalDiseaseZoonotic EffectReference
Sarcocystis spp.Equines
(Horses)
SarcocystosisConsumption of raw or undercooked horse meat can cause food poisoning in humans; it demonstrates zoonotic potential[177]
Toxoplasma gondiiDonkeysToxoplasmosisDetected in the blood and milk of donkeys; consumption of raw milk or meat may transmit infection to humans.[149,150]
Toxoplasma gondii Equine (Horses)ToxoplasmosisDetected in horses; consumption of raw or undercooked horse meat is linked to human infection cases[145,190,191,192,193,194]
Trichinella spp.HorseTrichinellosisOften subclinical in horses, but reduces meat quality due to larval encystment; causes human trichinellosis when raw or undercooked horse meat is consumed; several large outbreaks in Europe confirm strong zoonotic potential[158]
Sarcocystis spp.HorseSarcocystosisConsumption of raw or undercooked horse meat can cause food poisoning in humans; it demonstrates zoonotic potential[177]
Sarcocystis spp. & Toxoplasma gondiiEquineToxoplasmosis,
Sarcocystosis
Infectious equid meat with the highest prevalence in donkeys; humans may acquire infection through the consumption of contaminated meat, highlighting zoonotic risk[195]
Fasciola hepaticaEquines (horses, donkeys, mules)Equine fasciolosis (liver fluke infection)Recognized zoonosis (humans infected via metacercariae)[107,196]

8. Transmission of Parasitic Infections in Equines

Parasitic infections in equines occur through diverse transmission routes, depending on the parasite’s biology. Hemoparasites like Trypanosoma equiperdum are transmitted venereally during sexual intercourse via infected seminal fluid or genital mucosa, whereas Trypanosoma evansi spreads mechanically through biting flies (stable flies, horse flies) and tsetse flies in Africa; occasional transmission via milk or coitus has also been documented [197,198,199]. Nematodes such as Habronema spp. and Draschia megastoma are acquired orally when equids ingest infective L3 larvae deposited near lips or wounds by fly vectors, leading to gastric, cutaneous, or rare pulmonary infections [200,201,202]. Protozoans like Toxoplasma gondii infect equids through ingestion of sporulated oocysts from contaminated feed, water, or soil; transplacental transmission has also been reported, posing additional reproductive risks [145,203,204].
Blood-borne hemoparasites such as Babesia caballi and Theileria equi are transmitted by ixodid ticks during blood feeding, while Neospora caninum spreads via both vertical (transplacental) and horizontal (oral) routes depending on host species [27,205,206]. Free-living amoebae like Acanthamoeba hatchetti and caterpillar setae (e.g., Ochrogaster lunifer) can invade the reproductive system through vascular routes or migration from the gastrointestinal tract, leading to placentitis or abortion [207,208]. Gastrointestinal Strongyles follow direct life cycles, infecting equids via ingestion of infective L3 larvae from contaminated pasture [209]. Prevalence and control of strongyle nematode infections of horses in Sweden. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences [210]. The multifaceted transmission pathways (summarized in Figure 1) underscore the complexity of equine parasitic infections and highlight the critical need for detailed, species-specific epidemiological studies to quantify the relative importance of vertical, mechanical, and environmental transmission routes, particularly for emerging and zoonotic pathogens.

9. Diagnosis of Parasitic Infections in Equines

Accurate diagnosis of equine parasitic infections is essential for effective management. Hemoparasites like Trypanosoma equiperdum are primarily diagnosed through serological tests complement fixation test (CFT), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) employed to differentiate closely related species (T. equiperdum vs. T. evansi) [211,212]. Similarly, equine piroplasmosis (Babesia caballi and Theileria equi) relies on microscopic examination of Giemsa-stained blood smears, serology (ELISA, IFAT, CFT), and highly sensitive molecular assays such as PCR for detecting low-level parasitemia and carrier states [213,214].
For gastrointestinal helminths, traditional coprological techniques such as fecal egg count (FEC), fecal flotation, and larval culture remain the cornerstone for diagnosis and monitoring of strongyle and ascarid infections in equines [215]. The McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC methods are widely used to quantify egg load and evaluate anthelmintic efficacy [216,217]. Serological assays, including an ELISA targeting Strongylus vulgaris antibodies, have improved early detection of migrating larvae and pre-patent infections [218]. Molecular diagnostic tools, particularly PCR-based assays, provide species-specific identification [219]. For gastrointestinal nematodes like Habronema and Draschia, traditional fecal egg counts and larval detection in tissue biopsies have limited sensitivity. PCR now provides a gold standard for detecting both gastric and cutaneous forms, enhancing early diagnosis and guiding targeted interventions [200,220]. Protozoan reproductive pathogens such as Neospora caninum and Toxoplasma gondii are diagnosed through combined serological (ELISA, IFAT) and molecular approaches (PCR targeting Nc5, ITS1, or T. gondii DNA), providing confirmation in mares and pre-colostral foals [221,222].
Other parasites, including Encephalitozoon cuniculi and Acanthamoeba spp., require specialized serological or molecular methods due to cryptic morphology and low parasitemia; conventional microscopy often fails to detect these pathogens reliably [137,223]. While molecular and serological methods have advanced diagnosis, there is a significant research gap in the development of rapid, field-applicable, and multiplex diagnostic tools capable of detecting multiple equine parasites simultaneously, especially for co-infections and early-stage reproductive pathogens (Figure 2).

10. Control and Treatment of Parasitic Infections in Equines

Control of equine parasitic infections requires integrated strategies combining chemotherapeutic, management, and vector control approaches. Hemoparasites like Trypanosoma equiperdum are treated with melarsomine (Cymelarsan®), though tissue-resident parasites may persist, necessitating strict OIE-recommended culling of infected animals in endemic areas [224,225]. Vector-borne nematodes (Habronema spp., Draschia) are managed with anthelmintics (ivermectin, moxidectin), fly control, and wound care to prevent recurrence of gastric or cutaneous lesions [226]. Table 5 summarizes the current evidence-based drug protocols employed for the control and treatment of key equine parasitic diseases.
For protozoan reproductive pathogens (Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum, Encephalitozoon cuniculi), preventive measures such as feed hygiene, control of definitive hosts (cats, dogs), pasture management, and biosecurity are currently the most effective strategies, as no reliable chemotherapeutic treatments exist in equines [223,227]. Equine piroplasmosis (Babesia caballi, Theileria equi) is controlled through imidocarb dipropionate therapy, supportive care, and tick management; vector control remains essential to reduce transmission risk [228,229,230].
Helminth infections, particularly strongylosis, are managed through strategic anthelmintic administration combined with pasture hygiene, fecal removal, and rotational grazing; however, anthelmintic resistance is an emerging challenge requiring combination therapies and regular monitoring [215,231,232]. Similarly, equine besnoitiosis control focuses on preventing vector exposure and limiting contact with infected animals, as effective treatment options remain unavailable [233].
To minimize the development of anthelmintic resistance, deworming should follow targeted selective treatment (TST) based on fecal egg counts (FECs) rather than fixed calendar schedules [215,232]. Only horses showing high egg output (>200 EPG) should be treated, while low shedders remain untreated to maintain refugia [234]. Fecal egg count reduction tests (FECRT) every 6–12 months help monitor efficacy [235]. Accurate dosing according to body weight and rotating drug classes when efficacy declines are key for resistance prevention [236].
In addition to conventional chemotherapeutics, biological control approaches—particularly the use of the nematophagous fungus Duddingtonia flagrans, commercially formulated as BioWorma®—are emerging as sustainable alternatives in equine parasite management, effectively breaking the parasite life cycle by destroying gastrointestinal nematode larvae in feces and reducing pasture contamination when administered as a feed additive during the grazing season [237,238,239]. Similarly, Bioverm®, which also contains Duddingtonia flagrans, has been shown to reduce fecal egg count (EPG) and small strongyle larvae on pastures in horses. In a study, 16 mares were treated with Bioverm® at 1 g per 10 kg body weight daily for six months, resulting in improved weight gain and decreased parasitic burden [240]. Furthermore, BioWorma® (containing Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336) has demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing parasitic nematodes on pastures, improving the health of grazing animals, including horses. When used at a recommended daily application rate of 3 × 104 chlamydospores per kg body weight, it effectively lowers parasitic burdens, offering a sustainable alternative to traditional anthelmintics [241]. In conclusion, both BioWorma® and Bioverm® offer effective, sustainable solutions for controlling parasitic nematodes in equines, improving their health, productivity.
Plant-based anthelmintics such as Acacia nilotica, Rumex abyssinicus, Cucumis prophetarum, Allium sativum (garlic), Zingiber officinale (ginger), Chenopodium album, and Artemisia absinthium have demonstrated significant antiparasitic potential against gastrointestinal nematodes [242]. Plant-based anthelmintics such as papaya latex, garlic, and neem extracts have demonstrated antiparasitic potential, though standardized dosing and efficacy studies are still limited in equines [243]. Currently, no standardized herbal anthelmintics or vaccines are available for equines due to limited efficacy validation, complex parasite biology, and insufficient research investment in the equine industry. Despite the development of various experimental vaccines, their application is hindered by challenges such as antigen identification, immune evasion by parasites, and the lack of large-scale, longitudinal studies [98]. Additionally, diagnostic and monitoring tools for equine parasites remain underdeveloped, further impeding the validation and widespread use of alternative treatments [244]. As highlighted in a systematic review, the effective control of gastrointestinal nematodes in horses is significantly delayed due to gaps in knowledge and research, compounded by the challenges posed by anthelmintic resistance in equines [80].
Anthelmintic resistance has become a global concern, particularly among cyathostomins and Parascaris equorum, with widespread reduced efficacy of benzimidazoles, pyrantel, and macrocyclic lactones [232,245]. Surveillance using fecal egg count reduction tests (FECRT) and molecular markers is now recommended to guide evidence-based deworming programs [38,246,247].
A recent study on equine parasite diagnostics and control notes that for protozoan parasites in horses, “no anthelmintic resistance (AR) mechanisms have been clearly elucidated” and “there remains a pressing need for immunological-based control and novel drug–target discovery” due to limited treatment options and absence of vaccines [244]. Future research should focus on developing novel therapeutics, integrating biological control, and employing predictive modeling of vector-borne parasite transmission to enhance preventive strategies.
Antibiotics remain indispensable for managing primary and secondary bacterial infections in horses; however, their use is often accompanied by adverse effects such as colitis, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, arthropathy, and hypersensitivity reactions, and they can disrupt normal gut flora, predisposing animals to opportunistic infections [248]. Excessive or prolonged antibiotic administration has been shown to disturb metabolic balance and cecal microflora, reducing microbial diversity and beneficial metabolite production while promoting the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria such as Clostridium perfringens and Salmonella spp., which can lead to colic, diarrhea, and intestinal dysbiosis [249]. A large-scale survey of 14 UK equine practices (2012–2021) reported a median annual antibiotic usage of 54.25 mg/kg, with potentiated sulphonamides being the most frequently used class, while the use of critically important antimicrobials declined over time, reflecting progress in antimicrobial stewardship [250]. Overall, these findings highlight the need for careful and responsible antibiotic use in horses, along with regular monitoring, as published research on the long-term effects of antibiotics on equine health remains limited.
Table 5. Treatment of parasitic infections in equines.
Table 5. Treatment of parasitic infections in equines.
Parasite/DiseaseDrug & DoseRouteFrequency/ProtocolReferences
Trypanosoma
evansi (Surra) in horses & mules
Diminazene aceturate 3.5 mg/kg body weightIntramuscular (IM)On Day 0 and again on Day 41[251]
Trypanosoma
equiperdum (Dourine) in horses, acute & chronic infection
Melarsomine (Cymelarsan) 0.25 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kgIntramuscular (IM)Single dose; also tested in repeated or comparative regimens[224]
Trypanosoma equiperdum (Cymelarsan) in neurologic (CSF-positive) dourineMelarsomine (Cymelarsan) 0.5 mg/kg daily for 7 daysroute IM (used in study)Repeated daily administration over 7 days[252]
Theileria equi (Equine piroplasmosis)Imidocarb dipropionate
4 Dose (mg/kg)
Intramuscular (IM), subcutaneous (SC)Four injections 72 h apart[253]
Babesia caballi (Equine piroplasmosisImidocarb dipropionate
2.2 mg/kg
IM/SCTwo injections 48 h apart[254]
Habronema/Draschia spp. larvaeIvermectin
0.2 mg/kg
Historically IM in study; commonly oral in practiceSingle dose; lesions often need local care +/− anti-inflammatories[255]
Strongyles (roundworms) and Tapeworms (Anoplocephala perfoliata)Ivermectin (0.2 mg/kg) + Praziquantel (1.5 mg/kg)Oral (paste formulation, Equimax®)Single treatment suppressed strongyle FECs to zero for 10 weeks[256]
Cyathostomins (small Strongyles, encysted larvae and adults)Moxidectin 0.4 mg/kgOral (PO)Single dose; reduced FEC by 99.9% at 14 days;[257]
Cyathostomins (small Strongyles, encysted larvae and adults)Fenbendazole 10 mg/kgOral (PO)Once daily × 5 consecutive days; only 41.9% FEC reduction at 14 days;[257]

11. Conclusions

Parasitic infections in equines present multifaceted challenges to both animal health and agricultural productivity, affecting various aspects, including hematological health, reproductive performance, and the quality of milk and meat. Protozoan parasites, particularly Trypanosoma spp., Theileria equi, and Babesia caballi, cause significant disruptions in semen quality, fertility, and pregnancy outcomes, often through direct transplacental transmission or by inducing systemic illness in mares and stallions. Helminthic parasites, including Cyathostomins and Strongyles, further exacerbate these issues by impairing nutrient absorption and contributing to reduced productivity. The zoonotic potential of equine parasites, especially Sarcocystis spp. and Toxoplasma gondii, highlights the need for stringent food safety measures to protect public health, particularly in regions where raw equine meat and milk are consumed.
Despite considerable advances in diagnostic and treatment methods, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding co-infections and their cumulative effects on animal health and productivity. Effective control requires integrated parasite management strategies combining targeted selective deworming based on fecal egg counts, rotation of anthelmintic classes, and pasture hygiene to minimize resistance development. However, no standardized herbal anthelmintics or vaccines are currently available due to limited efficacy validation, complex parasite biology, and insufficient research investment in the equine industry. As a limitation of the present review, a detailed phylogenetic illustration of protozoan parasites could not be included due to manuscript length constraints. Nevertheless, we recognize its importance and recommend that future research incorporate comprehensive phylogenetic analyses to better elucidate the evolutionary relationships among major equine protozoan parasites. Future research should also focus on developing novel therapeutics, herbal formulations, vaccines, and diagnostic tools, in conjunction with large-scale epidemiological investigations, to more accurately assess the prevalence and impact of parasitic infections in equines. Strengthening management, herbal, and research strategies will improve equine welfare and productivity while ensuring the sustainability of this vital sector.

Author Contributions

A.U., M.Z.K. and M.F.A.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Visualization, Writing—review and editing. A.U., M.Z.K., M.F.A., W.C., C.W., Q.Z., L.S., M.G. and X.Z.: Resources, Data curation, Software, Writing—review and editing. M.Z.K., M.F.A., W.C.: Project administration, Funding acquisition, and Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant numbers 2023YFD1302004; 2022YFD1600103), Liaocheng Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology, High-talented Foreign Expert Introduction Program (GDWZ202401), The Shandong Province Modern Agricultural Technology System Donkey Industrial Innovation Team (grant no. SDAIT-27), The Open Project of Shandong Collaborative Innovation Center for Donkey Industry Technology (grant no. 3193308), Research on Donkey Pregnancy Improvement (grant no. K20LC0901) and Liaocheng University scientific research fund (grant no. 318052025).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Khan, M.Z.; Chen, W.; Wang, X.; Liang, H.; Wei, L.; Huang, B.; Kou, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Chai, W. A review of genetic resources and trends of omics applications in donkey research: Focus on China. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1366128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Maggs, H.C.; Ainslie, A.; Bennett, R.M. Donkey ownership provides a range of income benefits to the livelihoods of rural households in Northern Ghana. Animals 2021, 11, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gilbert, M.; Gillett, J. Equine athletes and interspecies sport. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2012, 47, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Xu, Q.; Wei, L.; Chen, X.; Zhu, H.; Wei, J.; Zhu, M.; Khan, M.Z.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Z. Nutritional Composition and Biological Activities of Donkey Milk: A Narrative Review. Foods 2025, 14, 2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Khan, M.Z.; Chen, W.; Li, M.; Ren, W.; Huang, B.; Kou, X.; Ullah, Q.; Wei, L.; Wang, T.; Khan, A. Is there sufficient evidence to support the health benefits of including donkey milk in the diet? Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1404998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, M.; Sun, L.; Du, X.; Zhao, Y.; Ren, W.; Man, L.; Zhu, M.; Liu, G.; Khan, M.Z.; Wang, C. Characterization and discrimination of donkey milk lipids and volatiles across lactation stages. Food Chem. X 2024, 23, 101740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Y.; Ma, Q.; Liu, G.; Wang, C. Effects of donkey milk on oxidative stress and inflammatory response. J. Food Biochem. 2022, 46, e13935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martini, M.; Altomonte, I.; Tricò, D.; Lapenta, R.; Salari, F. Current knowledge on functionality and potential therapeutic uses of donkey milk. Animals 2021, 11, 1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Souroullas, K.; Aspri, M.; Papademas, P. Donkey milk as a supplement in infant formula: Benefits and technological challenges. Food Res. Int. 2018, 109, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aroua, M.; Fehri, N.E.; Ben Said, S.; Quattrone, A.; Agradi, S.; Brecchia, G.; Balzaretti, C.M.; Mahouachi, M.; Castrica, M. The use of horse and donkey meat to enhance the quality of the traditional meat product (kaddid): Analysis of physico-chemical traits. Foods 2024, 13, 2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, M.; Sun, L.; Du, X.; Ren, W.; Man, L.; Chai, W.; Zhu, M.; Liu, G.; Wang, C. Characterization of lipids and volatile compounds in boiled donkey meat by lipidomics and volatilomics. J. Food Sci. 2024, 89, 3445–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wang, L.; Qu, H.; Wang, X.; Wang, T.; Ma, Q.; Khan, M.Z.; Zhu, M.; Wang, C.; Liu, W.; Chai, W. Data-independent acquisition method for in-depth proteomic screening of donkey meat. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hassan, Z.M.; Manyelo, T.G.; Nemukondeni, N.; Sebola, A.N.; Selaledi, L.; Mabelebele, M. The possibility of including donkey meat and Milk in the food chain: A southern African scenario. Animals 2022, 12, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Q. Comparative transcriptome and proteome analyses of the longissimus dorsi muscle for explaining the difference between donkey meat and other meats. Anim. Biotechnol. 2023, 34, 3085–3098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Peng, Y.; Liang, H.; Zahoor Khan, M.; Ren, W.; Huang, B.; Chen, Y.; Xing, S.; Zhan, Y.; Wang, C. Comprehensive transcriptomic analysis unveils the interplay of mRNA and LncRNA expression in shaping collagen organization and skin development in Dezhou donkeys. Front. Genet. 2024, 15, 1335591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, X.; Ren, W.; Peng, Y.; Khan, M.Z.; Liang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y.; Kou, X.; Wang, L. Elucidating the role of transcriptomic networks and DNA methylation in collagen deposition of Dezhou donkey skin. Animals 2024, 14, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, W.; Liu, X.; Zhu, Q.; Liu, J.; Ullah, A.; Liu, Y.; Wei, J.; Khan, M.Z.; Wang, C. Morphometric and Histological Characterization of Chestnuts in Dezhou Donkeys and Associations with Phenotypic Traits. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nielsen, M.K. Sustainable equine parasite control: Perspectives and research needs. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 185, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tyrnenopoulou, P.; Boufis, P.T.; Fthenakis, G.C.; Papadopoulos, E. Interactions between parasitic infections and reproductive efficiency in horses. Parasitologia 2021, 1, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gavazza, A.; Delgadillo, A.; Gugliucci, B.; Pasquini, A.; Lubas, G. Haematological alterations observed in equine routine complete blood counts. A retrospective investigation. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2002, 11, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Krecek, R.C.; Waller, P.J. Towards the implementation of the “basket of options” approach to helminth parasite control of livestock: Emphasis on the tropics/subtropics. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 139, 270–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Swann, W.J. Improving the welfare of working equine animals in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Perrucci, S.; Salari, F.; Maestrini, M.; Altomonte, I.; Guardone, L.; Nardoni, S.; Molento, M.B.; Martini, M. Cyathostomin fecal egg count and milk quality in dairy donkeys. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Veterinária 2021, 30, e028220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bermukhametov, Z.; Suleimanova, K.; Tomaruk, O.; Baimenov, B.; Shevchenko, P.; Batyrbekov, A.; Mikniene, Z.; Onur Girişgin, A.; Rychshanova, R. Equine sarcocystosis in the northern region of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Animals 2024, 14, 2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shoraba, M.; Shoulah, S.A.; Arnaout, F.; Selim, A. Equine trypanosomiasis: Molecular detection, hematological, and oxidative stress profiling. Vet. Med. Int. 2024, 2024, 6550276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mahmoud, M.S.; El-Ezz, N.T.A.; Abdel-Shafy, S.; Nassar, S.A.; El Namaky, A.H.; Khalil, W.K.; Knowles, D.; Kappmeyer, L.; Silva, M.G.; Suarez, C.E. Assessment of Theileria equi and Babesia caballi infections in equine populations in Egypt by molecular, serological and hematological approaches. Parasites Vectors 2016, 9, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wise, L.; Kappmeyer, L.; Mealey, R.; Knowles, D. Review of equine piroplasmosis. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2013, 27, 1334–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ali, S.; Ijaz, M.; Farooqi, S.; Durrani, A.; Rashid, M.; Ghaffar, A.; Ali, A.; Rehman, A.; Aslam, S.; Khan, I. Molecular characterisation of Theileria equi and risk factors associated with the occurrence of theileriosis in horses of Punjab (Pakistan). Equine Vet. Educ. 2021, 33, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Marino, G.; Zanghi, A.; Quartuccio, M.; Cristarella, S.; Giuseppe, M.; Catone, G. Equine testicular lesions related to invasion by nematodes. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009, 29, 728–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Desquesnes, M.; Holzmuller, P.; Lai, D.-H.; Dargantes, A.; Lun, Z.-R.; Jittaplapong, S. Trypanosoma evansi and surra: A review and perspectives on origin, history, distribution, taxonomy, morphology, hosts, and pathogenic effects. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 194176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Badiei, K.; Ahmadi, M.; Nazifi, S. Equine trypanosomiasis (T. evansi): A case report associated with abortion. Iran Vet. J. 1998, 1, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  32. Perri, A.; Mejía, M.; Licoff, N.; Lazaro, L.; Miglierina, M.; Ornstein, A.; Becu-Villalobos, D.; Lacau-Mengido, I. Gastrointestinal parasites presence during the peripartum decreases total milk production in grazing dairy Holstein cows. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 178, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Weiss, L.M.; Dubey, J.P. Toxoplasmosis: A history of clinical observations. Int. J. Parasitol. 2009, 39, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shaapan, R.M. The common zoonotic protozoal diseases causing abortion. J. Parasit. Dis. 2016, 40, 1116–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sazmand, A.; Bahari, A.; Papi, S.; Otranto, D. Parasitic diseases of equids in Iran (1931–2020): A literature review. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Alali, F.; Jawad, M.; Al-Obaidi, Q.T. A review of endo and ecto parasites of equids in Iraq. J. Adv. VetBio Sci. Tech. 2022, 7, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reinemeyer, C.; Nielsen, M. Control of helminth parasites in juvenile horses. Equine Vet. Educ. 2017, 29, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johnson, A.C.; Biddle, A.S. The use of molecular profiling to track equine reinfection rates of cyathostomin species following anthelmintic administration. Animals 2021, 11, 1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Molento, M.B. Parasite resistance on helminths of equids and management proposal’s. Ciência Rural 2005, 35, 1469–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Oryan, A.; Farjani Kish, G.; Rajabloo, M. Larval cyathostominosis in a working donkey. J. Parasit. Dis. 2015, 39, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Health, C.f.E. Equine Protozoal Myeloencephalitis (EPM). University of California, Davis. Available online: https://ceh.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/health-topics/equine-protozoal-myeloencephalitis-epm (accessed on 3 October 2025).[Green Version]
  42. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Equine Piroplasmosis (EP). Available online: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/equine/piroplasmosis (accessed on 3 October 2025).[Green Version]
  43. Aleman, M.; Shapiro, K.; Sisó, S.; Williams, D.C.; Rejmanek, D.; Aguilar, B.; Conrad, P.A. Sarcocystis fayeri in skeletal muscle of horses with neuromuscular disease. Neuromuscul. Disord. 2016, 26, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Allsopp, M.; Lewis, B.; Penzhorn, B.L. Molecular evidence for transplacental transmission of Theileria equi from carrier mares to their apparently healthy foals. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 148, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thompson, P.N.; Carstens, A.; Meintjes, R.; Oosthuizen, M.C.; Van Blerk, C.; Scheepers, F. Faculty Day, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, 6 September 2012: Research Overview. 2012. Available online: https://repository.up.ac.za/items/fd1386de-4431-4d40-9d7e-41def79efc40 (accessed on 3 October 2025).
  46. Angwin, C.-J.; de Assis Rocha, I.; Reed, S.M.; Morrow, J.K.; Graves, A.; Howe, D.K. Analysis of IgG responses to Sarcocystis neurona in horses with equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) suggests a Th1-biased immune response. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2025, 289, 111009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Parreira, D.R.; Jansen, A.M.; Abreu, U.G.; Macedo, G.C.; Silva, A.R.; Mazur, C.; Andrade, G.B.; Herrera, H.M. Health and epidemiological approaches of Trypanosoma evansi and equine infectious anemia virus in naturally infected horses at southern Pantanal. Acta Trop. 2016, 163, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Piroplasmosis, E. Equine piroplasmosis (EP) is a tick-borne protozoal disease ofhorses, mules, donkeys, and zebras that is character-ized by acute hemolytic anemia. 1-6 The etiologic agents are two hemoprotozoan parasites, Babesia equi (Laveran, 1901) 7 and Babesia caballi (Nutall and Strickland, 1910), 8. Equine Infect. Dis. 2007, 465. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tolera, T. Study on Tick-Borne Pathogens and Tick-Borne Diseases Using Molecular Tools with Emphasis on Anaplasma spp. and Ehrlichia spp. In Ticks and Domestic Ruminants in Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  50. Ola-Fadunsin, S.; Daodu, O.; Hussain, K.; Ganiyu, I.; Rabiu, M.; Sanda, I.; Adah, A.; Adah, A.; Aiyedun, J. Gastrointestinal parasites of horses (Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758) and risk factors associated with equine coccidiosis in Kwara and Niger States, Nigeria. Sokoto J. Vet. Sci. 2019, 17, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Dubey, J.P.; Bauer, C. A review of Eimeria infections in horses and other equids. Vet. Parasitol. 2018, 256, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Bangoura, B.; Daugschies, A. Eimeria. In Parasitic Protozoa of Farm Animals and Pets; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 55–101. [Google Scholar]
  53. Khamesipour, F.; Taktaz-Hafshejani, T.; Tebit, K.E.; Razavi, S.M.; Hosseini, S.R. Prevalence of endo-and ecto-parasites of equines in Iran: A systematic review. Vet. Med. Sci. 2021, 7, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Morsy, K.; Bashtar, A.R.; Al Quraishy, S.; Adel, S. Description of two equine nematodes, Parascaris equorum Goeze 1782 and Habronema microstoma Schneider 1866 from the domestic horse Equus ferus caballus (Famisly: Equidae) in Egypt. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 4299–4306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Soykan, E.; Öge, H. The prevalence of liver trematodes in equines in different cities of Turkey. Türkiye Parazitolojii Derg. 2012, 36, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Slocombe, J. Prevalence and treatment of tapeworms in horses. Can. Vet. J. 1979, 20, 136. [Google Scholar]
  57. Almatar, R. Equine Fasciolosis: A Literature Review. Diploma Thesis, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  58. Quigley, A.; Sekiya, M.; Garcia-Campos, A.; Paz-Silva, A.; Howell, A.; Williams, D.; Mulcahy, G. Horses are susceptible to natural, but resistant to experimental, infection with the liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 281, 109094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hornok, S.; Genchi, C.; Bazzocchi, C.; Fok, E.; Farkas, R. Prevalence of Setaria equine microfilaraemia in horses in Hungary. Vet. Rec. 2007, 161, 814–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Lee, H.; Hwang, H.; Ro, Y.; Kim, J.-H.; Lee, K.; Choi, E.; Bae, Y.; So, B.; Lee, I. Setaria digitata was the main cause of equine neurological ataxia in Korea: 50 cases (2015–2016). J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2021, 83, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Disassa, H.; Alebachew, A.; Kebede, G. Prevalence of strongyle infection in horses and donkeys in and around Dangila town, northwest Ethiopia. Acta Parasitol. Glob. 2015, 6, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
  62. Nielsen, M.K.; Facison, C.; Scare, J.A.; Martin, A.N.; Gravatte, H.S.; Steuer, A.E. Diagnosing Strongylus vulgaris in pooled fecal samples. Vet. Parasitol. 2021, 296, 109494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Belay, W.; Teshome, D.; Abiye, A. Study on the Prevalance of Gastrointestinal Helminthes Infection in Equines in and around Kombolcha. J. Vet. Sci. Technol. 2016, 7, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cribb, N.; Cote, N.; Boure, L.; Peregrine, A. Acute small intestinal obstruction associated with Parascaris equorum infection in young horses: 25 cases (1985–2004). N. Z. Vet. J. 2006, 54, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tatz, A.; Segev, G.; Steinman, A.; Berlin, D.; Milgram, J.; Kelmer, G. Surgical treatment for acute small intestinal obstruction caused by Parascaris equorum infection in 15 horses (2002–2011). Equine Vet. J. 2012, 44, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nielsen, M. Equine tapeworm infections: Disease, diagnosis and control. Equine Vet. Educ. 2016, 28, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kamran, K.; Ali, A.; Villagra, C.; Siddiqui, S.; Alouffi, A.S.; Iqbal, A. A cross-sectional study of hard ticks (acari: Ixodidae) on horse farms to assess the risk factors associated with tick-borne diseases. Zoonoses Public Health 2021, 68, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Onmaz, A.; Beutel, R.; Schneeberg, K.; Pavaloiu, A.; Komarek, A.; Van Den Hoven, R. Vectors and vector-borne diseases of horses. Vet. Res. Commun. 2013, 37, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chapman, G.E.; Sherlock, K.; Hesson, J.C.; Blagrove, M.S.; Lycett, G.J.; Archer, D.; Solomon, T.; Baylis, M. Laboratory transmission potential of British mosquitoes for equine arboviruses. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Siriyasatien, P.; Intayot, P.; Sawaswong, V.; Preativatanyou, K.; Wacharapluesadee, S.; Boonserm, R.; Sor-Suwan, S.; Ayuyoe, P.; Cantos-Barreda, A.; Phumee, A. Description of potential vectors of zoonotic filarial nematodes, Brugia pahangi, Setaria digitata, and Setaria labiatopapillosa in Thai mosquitoes. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hwang, H.; Ro, Y.; Lee, H.; Kim, J.; Lee, K.; Choi, E.-J.; Bae, Y.-C.; So, B.; Kwon, D.; Kim, H. Epidemiological investigation of equine hindlimb ataxia with Setaria digitata in South Korea. J. Vet. Sci. 2022, 23, e75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Baldacchino, F.; Desquesnes, M.; Mihok, S.; Foil, L.D.; Duvallet, G.; Jittapalapong, S. Tabanids: Neglected subjects of research, but important vectors of disease agents! Infect. Genet. Evol. 2014, 28, 596–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Phetkarl, T.; Fungwithaya, P.; Udompornprasith, S.; Amendt, J.; Sontigun, N. Preliminary study on prevalence of hemoprotozoan parasites harbored by Stomoxys (Diptera: Muscidae) and tabanid flies (Diptera: Tabanidae) in horse farms in Nakhon Si Thammarat province, Southern Thailand. Vet. World 2023, 16, 2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khang, L.H.; Peng, T.L.; Mohamad, M.A.; Rajdi, N.Z.I.M.; Goni, M.D. Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding ticks and tick borne diseases among horse keepers in Malaysia. Discov. Public Health 2025, 22, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Otranto, D.; Milillo, P.; Capelli, G.; Colwell, D.D. Species composition of Gasterophilus spp. (Diptera, Oestridae) causing equine gastric myiasis in southern Italy: Parasite biodiversity and risks for extinction. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 133, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Studzińska, M.B.; Wojcieszak, K. Gasterophilus sp. botfly larvae in horses from the south-eastern part of Poland. Bull. Vet. Inst. Pulawy 2009, 53, 651–655. [Google Scholar]
  77. Kaufman, P.E. External Parasites of Horses; University of Florida, IFAS Extension: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2010; Available online: http://extadmin.ifas.ufl.edu/media/extadminifasufledu/cflag/image/docs/fl-equine-institute/2010/Kaufman.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  78. Basit, A.; Ali, M.; Hussain, G.; Irfan, S.; Saqib, M.; Iftikhar, A.; Mustafa, I.; Mukhtar, I.; Anwar, H. Effect of equine piroplasmosis on hematological and oxidative stress biomarkers in relation to different seasons in District Sargodha, Pakistan. Pak. Vet. J. 2020, 40, 43–48. [Google Scholar]
  79. Duaso, J.; Perez-Ecija, A.; Martínez, E.; Navarro, A.; De Las Heras, A.; Mendoza, F.J. Assessment of common hematologic parameters and novel hematologic ratios for predicting piroplasmosis infection in horses. Animals 2025, 15, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Saeed, M.A.; Beveridge, I.; Abbas, G.; Beasley, A.; Bauquier, J.; Wilkes, E.; Jacobson, C.; Hughes, K.J.; El-Hage, C.; O’Handley, R. Systematic review of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses from Australia. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Camino, E.; Dorrego, A.; Carvajal, K.A.; Buendia-Andres, A.; de Juan, L.; Dominguez, L.; Cruz-Lopez, F. Serological, molecular and hematological diagnosis in horses with clinical suspicion of equine piroplasmosis: Pooling strengths. Vet. Parasitol. 2019, 275, 108928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Knowles, D.P.; Kappmeyer, L.S.; Haney, D.; Herndon, D.R.; Fry, L.M.; Munro, J.B.; Sears, K.; Ueti, M.W.; Wise, L.N.; Silva, M. Discovery of a novel species, Theileria haneyi n. sp., infective to equids, highlights exceptional genomic diversity within the genus Theileria: Implications for apicomplexan parasite surveillance. Int. J. Parasitol. 2018, 48, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Asif, M.; Parveen, A.; Ashraf, S.; Hussain, M.; Aktas, M.; Ozubek, S.; Shaikh, R.S.; Iqbal, F. First report regarding the simultaneous molecular detection of Anaplasma marginale and Theileria annulata in equine blood samples collected from Southern Punjab in Pakistan. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Bogdan, A.M.; Mitrea, I.L.; Ionita, M. Equine granulocytic anaplasmosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on clinico-pathological findings, diagnosis, and therapeutic management. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Takeet, M.; Adeleye, A.; Adebayo, O.; Akande, F. Haematology and serum biochemical alteration in stress induced equine theileriosis. A case report. Sci. World J. 2009, 4, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Paulino, P.G.; Almosny, N.; Oliveira, R.; Viscardi, V.; Müller, A.; Guimarães, A.; Baldani, C.; da Silva, C.; Peckle, M.; Massard, C. Detection of Neorickettsia risticii, the agent of Potomac horse fever, in horses from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7208. [Google Scholar]
  87. Siska, W.D.; Tuttle, R.E.; Messick, J.B.; Bisby, T.M.; Toth, B.; Kritchevsky, J.E. Clinicopathologic characterization of six cases of Equine Granulocytic Anaplasmosis in a nonendemic area (2008–2011). J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Munderloh, U.G.; Lynch, M.J.; Herron, M.J.; Palmer, A.T.; Kurtti, T.J.; Nelson, R.D.; Goodman, J.L. Infection of endothelial cells with Anaplasma marginale and A. phagocytophilum. Vet. Microbiol. 2004, 101, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lewis, S.R.; Zimmerman, K.; Dascanio, J.J.; Pleasant, R.S.; Witonsky, S.G. Equine granulocytic anaplasmosis: A case report and review. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009, 29, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cohn, L.A. Ehrlichiosis and related infections. Vet. Clin. Small Anim. Pract. 2003, 33, 863–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Onyiche, T.E.; Igwenagu, E.; Malgwi, S.A.; Omeh, I.J.; Biu, A.A.; Thekisoe, O. Hematology and biochemical values in equines naturally infected with Theileria equi in Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2022, 54, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Bagh, P.R. Effect of Tropical Theileriosis on Erythrocytes in Cattle of Coastal Odisha. Master’s Thesis, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Bhubaneswar, India, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  93. Villa, L.; Gazzonis, A.L.; Diezma-Diaz, C.; Perlotti, C.; Zanzani, S.A.; Ferrucci, F.; Álvarez-García, G.; Manfredi, M.T. Besnoitiosis in donkeys: An emerging parasitic disease of equids in Italy. Parasitol. Res. 2021, 120, 1811–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Dubey, J.; Sreekumar, C.; Donovan, T.; Rozmanec, M.; Rosenthal, B.; Vianna, M.; Davis, W.; Belden, J. Redescription of Besnoitia bennetti (Protozoa: Apicomplexa) from the donkey (Equus asinus). Int. J. Parasitol. 2005, 35, 659–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liénard, E.; Nabuco, A.; Vandenabeele, S.; Losson, B.; Tosi, I.; Bouhsira, É.; Prévot, F.; Sharif, S.; Franc, M.; Vanvinckenroye, C. First evidence of Besnoitia bennetti infection (Protozoa: Apicomplexa) in donkeys (Equus asinus) in Belgium. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Langenmayer, M.C.; Scharr, J.C.; Sauter-Louis, C.; Schares, G.; Gollnick, N.S. Natural Besnoitia besnoiti infections in cattle: Hematological alterations and changes in serum chemistry and enzyme activities. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. van Wyk, I.C.; Goddard, A.; Bronsvoort, B.M.d.C.; Coetzer, J.A.; Booth, C.; Hanotte, O.; Jennings, A.; Kiara, H.; Mashego, P.; Muller, C. Hematological profile of East African short-horn zebu calves from birth to 51 weeks of age. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2013, 22, 1029–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kebede, B.; Sori, T.; Kumssa, B. Review on current status of vaccines against parasitic diseases of animals. J. Vet. Sci. Technol. 2016, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Aboashia, F.A.; Alatrag, F.; Elmarimi, A. Internal parasites (nematode) infestation in pure Arabian horses: Field study. Open Vet. J. 2023, 13, 481–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Shapiro, L. Pathology and Parasitology for Veterinary Technicians; Cengage Learning: Independence, KY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  101. Deplazes, P.; Eckert, J.; Mathis, A.; von Samson-Himmelstjerna, G.; Zahner, H. Parasitology in veterinary medicine. In Parasitology in Veterinary Medicine; Wageningen Academic: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  102. Kumar, S.; Jakhar, K.; Singh, S.; Potliya, S.; Kumar, K.; Pal, M. Clinicopathological studies of gastrointestinal tract disorders in sheep with parasitic infection. Vet. World 2015, 8, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Mpofu, T.J.; Nephawe, K.A.; Mtileni, B. Gastrointestinal parasite infection intensity and hematological parameters in South African communal indigenous goats in relation to anemia. Vet. World 2020, 13, 2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Javed, K.; Ijaz, M.; Ali, M.M.; Khan, I.; Mehmood, K.; Ali, S. Prevalence and hematology of tick borne hemoparasitic diseases in equines in and around Lahore. Pak. J. Zool. 2014, 46, 401–408. [Google Scholar]
  105. Dorrego, A.; Camino, E.; Gago, P.; Buendia-Andres, A.; Acurio, K.; Gonzalez, S.; de Juan, L.; Cruz-Lopez, F. Haemato-biochemical characterization of equine piroplasmosis asymptomatic carriers and seropositive, real-time PCR negative horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2023, 323, 110046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rothschild, C.M. Equine piroplasmosis. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2013, 33, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sierra, R.M.Y.; Neira, G.; Bargues, M.D.; Cuervo, P.; Artigas, P.; Logarzo, L.; Cortiñas, G.; Ibaceta, D.E.; Garrido, A.L.; Bisutti, E. Equines as reservoirs of human fascioliasis: Transmission capacity, epidemiology and pathogenicity in Fasciola hepatica-infected mules. J. Helminthol. 2020, 94, e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Elmeligy, E.; Abdelbaset, A.; Elsayed, H.K.; Bayomi, S.A.; Hafez, A.; Abu-Seida, A.M.; El-Khabaz, K.A.; Hassan, D.; Ghandour, R.A.; Khalphallah, A. Oxidative stress in Strongylus spp. infected donkeys treated with piperazine citrate versus doramectin. Open Vet. J. 2021, 11, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ereqat, S.; Nasereddin, A.; Al-Jawabreh, A.; Al-Jawabreh, H.; Al-Laham, N.; Abdeen, Z. Prevalence of Trypanosoma evansi in livestock in Palestine. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Abbasi, I.H.R.; Sahito, H.A.; Sanjrani, M.I.; Abbasi, F.; Memon, M.A.; Menghwar, D.R.; Kaka, N.A.; Shah, M.N.; Memon, M. A disease complex pathogen “trypanosoma congolense” transmitted by tsetse fly in donkeys. Her. J. Agric. Food Sci. Res. 2014, 2, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  111. Felix, S.U.; Hyacinth, K.N.; Shinkut, M.; Wilson, E.O.; Sheriff, I.Y.; Bamidele J, K.; Paulin, C.N.; Peter, R.I. Modification of erythrogram, testosterone and prolactin profiles in jacks following experimental infection with Trypanosoma congolense. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 2021, 30, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kornaś, S.; Pozor, M.; Okólski, A.; Nowosad, B. The case of the nematode Setaria equina found in the vaginal sac of the stallion’s scrotum. Wiad. Parazytol. 2010, 56, 319–321. [Google Scholar]
  113. Silva, R.A.M.S.; Rivera Dávila, A.M.; Seidl, A.; Ramirez, L. Trypanosoma evansi and Trypanosoma vivax: Biology, Diagnosis and Control; EMBRAPA: Brasília, Brazil, 2002; Available online: http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/810940 (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  114. Batista, J.; Oliveira, A.; Rodrigues, C.; Damasceno, C.; Oliveira, I.; Alves, H.; Paiva, E.; Brito, P.; Medeiros, J.; Rodrigues, A. Infection by Trypanosoma vivax in goats and sheep in the Brazilian semiarid region: From acute disease outbreak to chronic cryptic infection. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 165, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Bittar, J.F.; Bassi, P.B.; Moura, D.M.; Garcia, G.C.; Martins-Filho, O.A.; Vasconcelos, A.B.; Costa-Silva, M.F.; Barbosa, C.P.; Araújo, M.S.; Bittar, E.R. Evaluation of parameters related to libido and semen quality in Zebu bulls naturally infected with Trypanosoma vivax. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Amin, Y.A.; Noseer, E.A.; Fouad, S.S.; Ali, R.A.; Mahmoud, H.Y. Changes of reproductive indices of the testis due to Trypanosoma evansi infection in dromedary bulls (Camelus dromedarius): Semen picture, hormonal profile, histopathology, oxidative parameters, and hematobiochemical profile. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2020, 7, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Abdel-Hakeem, S.S.; Megahed, G.; Al-Hakami, A.M.; Tolba, M.E.; Karar, Y.F. Impact of trypanosomiasis on male camel infertility. Front. Vet. Sci. 2025, 11, 1506532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Edwards, J.F. Pathologic conditions of the stallion reproductive tract. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2008, 107, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Tyrnenopoulou, P.; Diakakis, N.; Psalla, D.; Traversa, D.; Papadopoulos, E.; Antonakakis, M. Successful surgical management of eosinophilic granuloma on the urethral process of a gelding associated with Habronema spp. infection. Equine Vet. Educ. 2019, 31, e1–e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Khan, I.U.; Khairullah, A.R.; Khan, A.Y.; Rehman, A.U.; Mustofa, I. Strategic approaches to improve equine breeding and stud farm outcomes. Vet. World 2025, 18, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Dubcová, J. Reproduction of Domestic Horses (Equus caballus): The Effects of Inbreeding, Social Environment and Breeding Management. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Bohemia České Budějovice, České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  122. Didier, E.; Stovall, M.; Green, L.; Brindley, P.; Sestak, K.; Didier, P. Epidemiology of microsporidiosis: Sources and modes of transmission. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 126, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Satué, K.; Gardon, J. Pregnancy loss in mares. In Genital Infections and Infertility; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  124. Cabral, L.D.R.; Sato, A.P.; de Sousa, R.S.; Rossa, A.P.; Sanches, A.W.D.; Bortoleto, C.T.; Dittrich, R.L. Detection of Neospora spp. and Sarcocystis neurona in amniotic fluid and placentas from mares. Vet. Parasitol. 2022, 303, 109678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Mimoun, L.; Steinman, A.; Kliachko, Y.; Tirosh-Levy, S.; Schvartz, G.; Blinder, E.; Baneth, G.; Mazuz, M.L. Neospora spp. seroprevalence and risk factors for seropositivity in apparently healthy horses and pregnant mares. Animals 2022, 12, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Patterson-Kane, J.; Caplazi, P.; Rurangirwa, F.; Tramontin, R.; Wolfsdorf, K. Encephalitozoon cuniculi placentitis and abortion in a quarterhorse mare. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2003, 15, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Szeredi, L.; Pospischil, A.; Dencső, L.; Mathis, A.; Dobos-Kovács, M. A case of equine abortion caused by Encephalitozoon sp. Acta Vet. Hung. 2007, 55, 525–532. [Google Scholar]
  128. Mahdy, O.A.; Nassar, A.M.; Mohamed, B.S.; Mahmoud, M.S. Comparative diagnosis utilizing molecular and serological techniques of Theileria equi infection in distinct equine populations in Egypt. Int. J. Chem Tech Res. 2016, 9, 185–197. [Google Scholar]
  129. de Sousa, S.H.; Paludo, G.R.; Freschi, C.R.; Machado, R.Z.; de Castro, M.B. Theileria equi infection causing abortion in a mare in Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2017, 8, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tirosh-Levy, S.; Gottlieb, Y.; Mimoun, L.; Mazuz, M.L.; Steinman, A. Transplacental transmission of Theileria equi is not a common cause of abortions and infection of foals in Israel. Animals 2020, 10, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Tirosh-Levy, S.; Gottlieb, Y.; Mazuz, M.L.; Savitsky, I.; Steinman, A. Infection dynamics of Theileria equi in carrier horses is associated with management and tick exposure. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2020, 11, 101508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kouam, M.K.; Kantzoura, V.; Gajadhar, A.A.; Theis, J.H.; Papadopoulos, E.; Theodoropoulos, G. Seroprevalence of equine piroplasms and host-related factors associated with infection in Greece. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 169, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Machado, R.; Toledo, C.; Teixeira, M.; André, M.; Freschi, C.; Sampaio, P. Molecular and serological detection of Theileria equi and Babesia caballi in donkeys (Equus asinus) in Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 186, 461–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Wise, L.N.; Pelzel-McCluskey, A.M.; Mealey, R.H.; Knowles, D.P. Equine piroplasmosis. Vet. Clin. Equine Pract. 2014, 30, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Anderson, J.A.; Alves, D.A.; Cerqueira-Cézar, C.K.; da Silva, A.F.; Murata, F.H.; Norris, J.K.; Howe, D.K.; Dubey, J.P. Histologically, immunohistochemically, ultrastructurally, and molecularly confirmed neosporosis abortion in an aborted equine fetus. Vet. Parasitol. 2019, 270, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Springer, A.; Krüger, C.; Strube, C.; Steinhauer, D. Worms and reproductive failure: First evidence of transplacental Halicephalobus transmission leading to repeated equine abortion. Curr. Res. Parasitol. Vector-Borne Dis. 2025, 8, 100309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Begg, A.P.; Todhunter, K.; Donahoe, S.L.; Krockenberger, M.; Šlapeta, J. Severe amoebic placentitis in a horse caused by an Acanthamoeba hatchetti isolate identified using next-generation sequencing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014, 52, 3101–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Pereira, J.; Vianna, S. Gastrointestinal parasitic worms in equines in the Paraíba Valley, State of São Paulo, Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 140, 289–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Getahun, T.K.; Kassa, T.Z. Prevalence and species of major gastrointestinal parasites of donkeys in Tenta Woreda, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health 2017, 9, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  140. Clausen, P.-H.; Chuluun, S.; Sodnomdarjaa, R.; Greiner, M.; Noeckler, K.; Staak, C.; Zessin, K.-H.; Schein, E. A field study to estimate the prevalence of Trypanosoma equiperdum in Mongolian horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 115, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Miao, Q.; Wang, X.; She, L.-N.; Fan, Y.-T.; Yuan, F.-Z.; Yang, J.-F.; Zhu, X.-Q.; Zou, F.-C. Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in horses and donkeys in Yunnan Province, Southwestern China. Parasites Vectors 2013, 6, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Nagel, C.; Melchert, M.; Aurich, J.; Aurich, C. Road transport of late-pregnant mares advances the onset of foaling. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2020, 86, 102894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Wagnerová, P.; Sak, B.; Květoňová, D.; Xiao, L.; Rost, M.; McEvoy, J.; Saadi, A.R.; Aissi, M.; Kváč, M. Microsporidia and Cryptosporidium in horses and donkeys in Algeria: Detection of a novel Cryptosporidium hominis subtype family (Ik) in a horse. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 208, 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  144. Klun, I.; Uzelac, A.; Villena, I.; Mercier, A.; Bobić, B.; Nikolić, A.; Rajnpreht, I.; Opsteegh, M.; Aubert, D.; Blaga, R. The first isolation and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii from horses in Serbia. Parasites Vectors 2017, 10, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Pomares, C.; Ajzenberg, D.; Bornard, L.; Bernardin, G.; Hasseine, L.; Darde, M.-L.; Marty, P. Toxoplasmosis and horse meat, France. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Boughattas, S. Toxoplasma infection and milk consumption: Meta-analysis of assumptions and evidences. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2924–2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Gianfaldoni, C.; Barlozzari, G.; Mancini, S.; ELISABETTA, D.D.; Maestrini, M.; Perrucci, S. Parasitological investigation in an organic dairy donkey farm. LARGE Anim. Rev. 2020, 26, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  148. Ragona, G.; Corrias, F.; Benedetti, M.; Paladini, M.; Salari, F.; Martini, M. Amiata donkey milk chain: Animal health evaluation and milk quality. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2016, 5, 5951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Mancianti, F.; Nardoni, S.; Papini, R.; Mugnaini, L.; Martini, M.; Altomonte, I.; Salari, F.; D’Ascenzi, C.; Dubey, J.P. Detection and genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii DNA in the blood and milk of naturally infected donkeys (Equus asinus). Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Dubey, J.P.; Ness, S.L.; Kwok, O.C.H.; Choudhary, S.; Mittel, L.; Divers, T. Seropositivity of Toxoplasma gondii in domestic donkeys (Equus asinus) and isolation of T. gondii from farm cats. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 199, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Charlier, J.; Duchateau, L.; Claerebout, E.; Williams, D.; Vercruysse, J. Associations between anti-Fasciola hepatica antibody levels in bulk-tank milk samples and production parameters in dairy herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 2007, 78, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Khan, M.K.; Sajid, M.S.; Khan, M.N.; Iqbal, Z.; Iqbal, M.U. Bovine fasciolosis: Prevalence, effects of treatment on productivity and cost benefit analysis in five districts of Punjab, Pakistan. Res. Vet. Sci. 2009, 87, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Köstenberger, K.; Tichy, A.; Bauer, K.; Pless, P.; Wittek, T. Associations between fasciolosis and milk production, and the impact of anthelmintic treatment in dairy herds. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 1981–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Byford, R.; Craig, M.; Crosby, B. A review of ectoparasites and their effect on cattle production. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Ahaotu, E.; Simeon-Ahaotu, V.; Alsharifi, S.; Herasymenko, N.; Hagos, H.; Iheanacho, R. Effects of ectoparasites on cattle in agro-ecological zones in Nigeria—A review. J. Vet. Res. Adv. 2024, 6, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
  156. Bah, M. Effects of Arthropod Ectoparasite Infestations on Livestock Productivity in Three Districts in Southern Ghana. Master’s Thesis, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  157. Mezo, M.; González-Warleta, M.; Castro-Hermida, J.A.; Muino, L.; Ubeira, F.M. Association between anti-F. hepatica antibody levels in milk and production losses in dairy cows. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 180, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Touratier, L. A challenge of veterinary public health in the European Union: Human trichinellosis due to horse meat consumption. Parasite 2001, 8, S252–S256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  159. Bezerra, F.S.B.; Batista, J.S. Efeitos da infecção por Trypanosoma vivax sobre a reprodução: Uma revisão. Acta Vet. Bras. 2008, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  160. Almeida, K.S.; da Costa Freitas, F.L.; Jorge, R.L.N.; da Silva Nogueira, C.A.; Machado, R.Z.; do Nascimento, A.A. Aspectos hematológicos da infecção experimental por Trypanosoma vivax em ovinos. Ciência Anim. Bras./Braz. Anim. Sci. 2008, 9, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  161. Álvarez-García, G.; Frey, C.F.; Mora, L.M.O.; Schares, G. A century of bovine besnoitiosis: An unknown disease re-emerging in Europe. Trends Parasitol. 2013, 29, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Cortes, H.; Leitao, A.; Gottstein, B.; Hemphill, A. A review on bovine besnoitiosis: A disease with economic impact in herd health management, caused by Besnoitia besnoiti (Franco and Borges, 1916). Parasitology 2014, 141, 1406–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Gazzonis, A.L.; Alvarez Garcia, G.; Maggioni, A.; Zanzani, S.A.; Olivieri, E.; Compiani, R.; Sironi, G.; Ortega Mora, L.M.; Manfredi, M.T. Serological dynamics and risk factors of Besnoitia besnoiti infection in breeding bulls from an endemically infected purebred beef herd. Parasitol. Res. 2017, 116, 1383–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mabbott, N.A. The influence of parasite infections on host immunity to co-infection with other pathogens. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 2579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Khan, M.Z.; Li, Y.; Zhu, M.; Li, M.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, W.; Ma, Q.; Wang, C. Advances in Donkey Disease Surveillance and Microbiome Characterization in China. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Khedri, J.; Radfar, M.H.; Nikbakht, B.; Zahedi, R.; Hosseini, M.; Azizzadeh, M.; Borji, H. Parasitic causes of meat and organs in cattle at four slaughterhouses in Sistan-Baluchestan Province, Southeastern Iran between 2008 and 2016. Vet. Med. Sci. 2021, 7, 1230–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Mohammadi, O.; Shakerian, A. Investigation of parasitic contamination of protein products produced in Isfahan industrial slaughterhouse. Rev. Investig. Univ. Del Quindío 2023, 35, 373–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rizwan, H.M.; Zohaib, H.M.; Sajid, M.S.; Abbas, H.; Younus, M.; Farid, M.U.; Iftakhar, T.; Muzaffar, H.A.; Hassan, S.S.; Kamran, M. Inflicting significant losses in slaughtered animals: Exposing the hidden effects of parasitic infections. Pathogens 2023, 12, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Xiang, H.; Zhao, X.; Fang, Y.; Wang, F.; Liang, R.; Sun, X.; Wang, S.; Zhong, R. Feeding fungal-pretreated corn straw improves health and meat quality of lambs infected with gastrointestinal nematodes. Animals 2020, 10, 1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Zhang, K.; Teng, H.; Zhu, L.; Ni, B.; Jiewei, L.; Shanshan, L.; Yunong, Z.; Guo, X.; Lamu, D. The impact of Sarcocystis infection on lamb flavor metabolites and its underlying molecular mechanisms. Front. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 1543081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Sack, A.; Oladunni, F.S.; Gonchigoo, B.; Chambers, T.M.; Gray, G.C. Zoonotic diseases from horses: A systematic review. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2020, 20, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Fong, I. New and emerging parasitic zoonoses. In Emerging Zoonoses: A Worldwide Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 211–239. [Google Scholar]
  173. Dupouy-Camet, J. History of trichinellosis in the history of the catalog of the French National Library. Hist. Des Sci. Medicales 2015, 49, 411–420. [Google Scholar]
  174. Murrell, K.; Djordjevic, M.; Cuperlovic, K.; Sofronic, L.; Savic, M.; Damjanovic, S. Epidemiology of Trichinella infection in the horse: The risk from animal product feeding practices. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 123, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Agholi, M.; Taghadosi, Z.; Mehrabani, D.; Zahabiun, F.; Sharafi, Z.; Motazedian, M.H.; Hatam, G.R.; Naderi Shahabadi, S. Human intestinal sarcocystosis in Iran: There but not seen. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 4527–4533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Rosenthal, B.M. Zoonotic sarcocystis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2021, 136, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kamata, Y.; Saito, M.; Irikura, D.; Yahata, Y.; Ohnishi, T.; Bessho, T.; Inui, T.; Watanabe, M.; Sugita-Konishi, Y. A toxin isolated from Sarcocystis fayeri in raw horsemeat may be responsible for food poisoning. J. Food Prot. 2014, 77, 814–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Rommel, M.; Geisel, O. Studies on the incidence and life cycle of a sarcosporidian species of the horse (Sarcocystis equicanis n. spec). Berl. Und Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 1975, 88, 468–471. [Google Scholar]
  179. Dubey, J.; Streitel, R.; Stromberg, P.; Toussant, M. Sarcocystis fayeri sp. n. from the horse. J. Parasitol. 1977, 63, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Hinaidy, H.; Loupal, G. Sarcocystis bertrami Doflein, 1901, ein Sarkosporid des Pferdes, Equus caballus. Zentralblatt Für Veterinärmedizin Reihe B 1982, 29, 681–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Schnieder, T.; Zimmermann, U.; Matuschka, F.; Bürger, H.J.; Rommel, M. Zur Klinik, Enzymaktivität und Antikörperbildung bei experimentell mit Sarkosporidien infizierten Pferden 1. Zentralblatt Für Veterinärmedizin Reihe B 1985, 32, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Fukuyo, M.; Battsetseg, G.; Byambaa, B. Prevalence of Sarcocystis infection in horses in Mongolia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2002, 33, 718–719. [Google Scholar]
  183. Edwards, G. Prevalence of equine sarcocystis in British horses and a comparison of two detection methods. Vet. Rec. 1984, 115, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Erber, M.; Geisel, O. Vorkommen und entwicklung von 2 sarkosporidienarten des pferdes. Z. Für Parasitenkd. 1981, 65, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Kirmse, P. Sarcosporidiosis in equines of Morocco. Br. Vet. J. 1986, 142, 70–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Cawthorn, R.J.; Clark, M.; Hudson, R.; Friesen, D. Histological and ultrastructural appearance of severe Sarcocystis fayeri infection in a malnourished horse. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1990, 2, 342–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Lorenzo, J.M.; Sarriés, M.V.; Tateo, A.; Polidori, P.; Franco, D.; Lanza, M. Carcass characteristics, meat quality and nutritional value of horsemeat: A review. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 1478–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Marques, C.; da Silva, B.; Nogueira, Y.; Bezerra, T.; Tavares, A.; Borges-Silva, W.; Gondim, L. Brazilian horses from Bahia state are highly infected with Sarcocystis bertrami. Animals 2022, 12, 3491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Sobanski, V.; Ajzenberg, D.; Delhaes, L.; Bautin, N.; Just, N. Severe toxoplasmosis in immunocompetent hosts: Be aware of atypical strains. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 187, 1143–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Elbez-Rubinstein, A.; Ajzenberg, D.; Dardé, M.-L.; Cohen, R.; Dumètre, A.; Yera, H.; Gondon, E.; Janaud, J.-C.; Thulliez, P. Congenital toxoplasmosis and reinfection during pregnancy: Case report, strain characterization, experimental model of reinfection, and review. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 199, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Al-Khalidi, N.W.; Dubey, J. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection in horses. J. Parasitol. 1979, 65, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Shaapan, R.; Ghazy, A. Isolation of Toxoplasma gondii from horse meat in Egypt. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. PJBS 2007, 10, 174–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Evers, F.; Garcia, J.L.; Navarro, I.T.; Zulpo, D.L.; Nino, B.d.S.L.; Ewald, M.P.d.C.; Pagliari, S.; Almeida, J.C.d.; Freire, R.L. Diagnosis and isolation of Toxoplasma gondii in horses from Brazilian slaughterhouses. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Veterinária 2013, 22, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Paştiu, A.I.; Györke, A.; Kalmár, Z.; Bolfă, P.; Rosenthal, B.M.; Oltean, M.; Villena, I.; Spînu, M.; Cozma, V. Toxoplasma gondii in horse meat intended for human consumption in Romania. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 393–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Amairia, S.; Jbeli, M.; Mrabet, S.; Jebabli, L.M.; Gharbi, M. Molecular prevalence of Sarcocystis spp. and toxoplasma gondii in slaughtered equids in northern Tunisia. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2023, 129, 104894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Howell, A.; Malalana, F.; Beesley, N.; Hodgkinson, J.; Rhodes, H.; Sekiya, M.; Archer, D.; Clough, H.; Gilmore, P.; Williams, D. Fasciola hepatica in UK horses. Equine Vet. J. 2020, 52, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Lelli, R.; Calistri, P.; Giovannini, A.; Caporale, V. Evidence of T. equiperdum infection in the Italian Dourine outbreaks. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2012, 32, S70–S71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Azzouzi, C.; Rabah-Sidhoum, N.; Boucheikhchoukh, M.; Mechouk, N.; Sedraoui, S.; Benakhla, A. Checklist of Medico-Veterinary Important Biting Flies (Ceratopogonidae, Hippoboscidae, Phlebotominae, Simuliidae, Stomoxyini, and Tabanidae) and Their Associated Pathogens and Hosts in Maghreb. Parasitologia 2024, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Gizaw, Y.; Megersa, M.; Fayera, T. Dourine: A neglected disease of equids. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 887–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Salem, M.A.; El-Gameel, S.M.; Kamel, M.S.; Elsamman, E.M.; Ramadan, R.M. Innovative diagnostic strategies for equine habronemiasis: Exploring molecular identification, gene expression, and oxidative stress markers. Parasites Vectors 2025, 18, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Anderson, R.C. Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates: Their Development and Transmission, 2nd ed.; Cabi: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  202. Traversa, D.; Otranto, D.; Iorio, R.; Carluccio, A.; Contri, A.; Paoletti, B.; Bartolini, R.; Giangaspero, A. Identification of the intermediate hosts of Habronema microstoma and Habronema muscae under field conditions. Med. Vet. Entomol. 2008, 22, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Dubey, J. Toxoplasmosis of Animals and Humans, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  204. Hill, D.; Dubey, J.P. Toxoplasma gondii: Transmission, diagnosis and prevention. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2002, 8, 634–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Ueti, M.W.; Palmer, G.H.; Scoles, G.A.; Kappmeyer, L.S.; Knowles, D.P. Persistently infected horses are reservoirs for intrastadial tick-borne transmission of the apicomplexan parasite Babesia equi. Infect. Immun. 2008, 76, 3525–3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Dubey, J.; Schares, G.; Ortega-Mora, L. Epidemiology and control of neosporosis and Neospora caninum. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2007, 20, 323–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Marciano-Cabral, F.; Cabral, G. Acanthamoeba spp. as agents of disease in humans. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 273–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Todhunter, K.; Cawdell-Smith, A.; Bryden, W.; Perkins, N.; Begg, A. Processionary caterpillar setae and equine fetal loss: 1. Histopathology of experimentally exposed pregnant mares. Vet. Pathol. 2014, 51, 1117–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Lind, E.O. Prevalence and Control of Strongyle Nematode Infections of Horses in Sweden; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  210. Kuzmina, T.; Kuzmin, Y.; Kharchenko, V.A. Field study on the survival, migration and overwintering of infective larvae of horse strongyles on pasture in central Ukraine. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 141, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Birhanu, H.; Gebrehiwot, T.; Goddeeris, B.M.; Büscher, P.; Van Reet, N. New Trypanosoma evansi type B isolates from Ethiopian dromedary camels. PLoS Neglected Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Cuypers, B.; Van den Broeck, F.; Van Reet, N.; Meehan, C.J.; Cauchard, J.; Wilkes, J.M.; Claes, F.; Goddeeris, B.; Birhanu, H.; Dujardin, J.-C. Genome-wide SNP analysis reveals distinct origins of Trypanosoma evansi and Trypanosoma equiperdum. Genome Biol. Evol. 2017, 9, 1990–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Gong, Z.-L.; Liu, G.-Y.; Xie, J.-R.; Chai, H.-P.; Zhang, L.-Y.; Li, Z.-X.; Tian, Z.-C.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.-G. An indirect ELISA for the detection of Babesia caballi in equine animals. Chin. J. Parasitol. Parasit. Dis. 2010, 28, 200–204. [Google Scholar]
  214. Ahedor, B.; Sivakumar, T.; Valinotti, M.F.R.; Otgonsuren, D.; Yokoyama, N.; Acosta, T.J. PCR detection of Theileria equi and Babesia caballi in apparently healthy horses in Paraguay. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2023, 39, 100835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Kaplan, R.M.; Nielsen, M.K. An evidence-based approach to equine parasite control: It ain’t the 60s anymore. Equine Vet. Educ. 2010, 22, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Tran, L. Shining a Light on Molecular Detection of Agriculturally Important Livestock Parasites and Their Vectors: Development of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Methods for Small Ruminant Farming. Ph.D. Thesis, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  217. Elghryani, N.; McAloon, C.; Mincher, C.; McOwan, T.; Waal, T.d. Comparison of the automated OvaCyte telenostic faecal analyser versus the McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC techniques in the estimation of helminth faecal egg counts in equine. Animals 2023, 13, 3874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Nielsen, M.K.; Anderson, U.; Howe, D.K. Diagnosis of Strongylus vulgaris. U.S. Patent US 8,951,741 B1, 10 February 2015. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gluck_patents/3 (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  219. Hodgkinson, J.E. Molecular diagnosis and equine parasitology. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 136, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Giangaspero, A.; Traversa, D.; Otranto, D. A new tool for the diagnosis in vivo of habronemosis in horses. Equine Vet J. 2005, 37, 263–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Antonello, A.M.; Pivoto, F.L.; Camillo, G.; Braunig, P.; Sangioni, L.A.; Pompermayer, E.; Vogel, F.S.F. The importance of vertical transmission of Neospora sp. in naturally infected horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 187, 367–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Martínez-Sáez, L.; Pala, S.; Marín-García, P.J.; Llobat, L. Serological and molecular detection of Toxoplasma gondii infection in apparently healthy horses in eastern of Spain. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2024, 54, 101093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Magalhães, T.R.; Pinto, F.F.; Queiroga, F.L. A multidisciplinary review about Encephalitozoon cuniculi in a One Health perspective. Parasitol. Res. 2022, 121, 2463–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Hagos, A.; Goddeeris, B.; Yilkal, K.; Alemu, T.; Fikru, R.; Yacob, H.; Feseha, G.; Claes, F. Efficacy of Cymelarsan® and Diminasan® against Trypanosoma equiperdum infections in mice and horses. Vet. Parasitol. 2010, 171, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Rendle, D.; Hughes, K.; Bowen, M.; Bull, K.; Cameron, I.; Furtado, T.; Peachey, L.; Sharpe, L.; Hodgkinson, J. BEVA primary care clinical guidelines: Equine parasite control. Equine Vet. J. 2024, 56, 392–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Felippelli, G.; Cruz, B.C.; Gomes, L.V.C.; Lopes, W.D.Z.; Teixeira, W.F.P.; Maciel, W.G.; Buzzulini, C.; Bichuette, M.A.; Campos, G.P.; Soares, V.E. Susceptibility of helminth species from horses against different chemical compounds in Brazil. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 212, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Dubey, J.P. Review of Neospora caninum and neosporosis in animals. Korean J. Parasitol. 2003, 41, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Del Pino, L.E.B.; Roberto, N.; Vincenzo, V.; Francesca, I.; Antonella, C.; Luca, A.G.; Francesco, B.; Teresa, S.M. Babesia caballi and Theileria equi infections in horses in Central-Southern Italy: Sero-molecular survey and associated risk factors. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Salib, F.A.; Youssef, R.R.; Rizk, L.G.; Said, S.F. Epidemiology, diagnosis and therapy of Theileria equi infection in Giza, Egypt. Vet. World 2013, 6, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Onyiche, T.E.; Suganuma, K.; Igarashi, I.; Yokoyama, N.; Xuan, X.; Thekisoe, O. A review on equine piroplasmosis: Epidemiology, vector ecology, risk factors, host immunity, diagnosis and control. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Dauparaitė, E.; Kupčinskas, T.; Hoglund, J.; Petkevičius, S. A survey of control strategies for equine small strongyles in Lithuania. Helminthologia 2021, 58, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Matthews, J.B. Anthelmintic resistance in equine nematodes. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2014, 4, 310–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Elsheikha, H.M.; Schares, G.; Paraschou, G.; Sullivan, R.; Fox, R. First record of besnoitiosis caused by Besnoitia bennetti in donkeys from the UK. Parasites Vectors 2020, 13, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Leathwick, D.M.; Sauermann, C.W.; Nielsen, M.K. Managing anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomin parasites: Investigating the benefits of refugia-based strategies. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2019, 10, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Nielsen, M. Parasite faecal egg counts in equine veterinary practice. Equine Vet. Educ. 2022, 34, 584–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Peregrine, A.S.; Molento, M.B.; Kaplan, R.M.; Nielsen, M.K. Anthelmintic resistance in important parasites of horses: Does it really matter? Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 201, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Nunes, G.T.; Corrêa, D.C.; Chitolina, M.B.; da Rosa, G.; da Fontoura Pereira, R.C.; Cargnelutti, J.F.; Vogel, F.S.F. Efficacy evaluation of a commercial formulation with Duddingtonia flagrans in equine gastrointestinal nematodes. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2023, 131, 104930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Buzatti, A.; de Paula Santos, C.; Fernandes, M.A.M.; Yoshitani, U.Y.; Sprenger, L.K.; dos Santos, C.D.; Molento, M.B. Duddingtonia flagrans in the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of horses. Exp. Parasitol. 2015, 159, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Baudena, M.; Chapman, M.; Larsen, M.; Klei, T. Efficacy of the nematophagous fungus Duddingtonia flagrans in reducing equine cyathostome larvae on pasture in south Louisiana. Vet. Parasitol. 2000, 89, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Fausto, G.C.; Fausto, M.C.; Vieira, Í.S.; de Freitas, S.G.; de Carvalho, L.M.; de Castro Oliveira, I.; Silva, E.N.; Campos, A.K.; de Araújo, J.V. Formulation of the nematophagous fungus Duddingtonia flagrans in the control of equine gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes. Vet. Parasitol. 2021, 295, 109458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Additives, E.P.o.; Feed, P.o.S.u.i.A.; Bampidis, V.; Azimonti, G.; de Lourdes Bastos, M.; Christensen, H.; Dusemund, B.; Kos Durjava, M.; Kouba, M.; López-Alonso, M.; et al. Safety and efficacy of BioWorma®(Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336) as a feed additive for all grazing animals. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06208. [Google Scholar]
  242. Peachey, L.; Pinchbeck, G.; Matthews, J.; Burden, F.; Mulugeta, G.; Scantlebury, C.; Hodgkinson, J. An evidence-based approach to the evaluation of ethnoveterinary medicines against strongyle nematodes of equids. Vet. Parasitol. 2015, 210, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Mansur, F.; Luoga, W.; Buttle, D.; Duce, I.; Lowe, A.; Behnke, J. The anthelmintic efficacy of natural plant cysteine proteinases against the equine tapeworm, Anoplocephala perfoliatain vitro. J. Helminthol. 2016, 90, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Wang, T.; Chen, X.; Yan, X.; Su, Y.; Gao, W.; Liu, C.; Wang, W. Progress in serology and molecular biology of equine parasite diagnosis: Sustainable control strategies. Front. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 1663577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Raza, A.; Qamar, A.G.; Hayat, K.; Ashraf, S.; Williams, A.R. Anthelmintic resistance and novel control options in equine gastrointestinal nematodes. Parasitology 2019, 146, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Lester, H. Anthelmintic Resistance in Equine Parasites: An Epidemiological Approach to Build a Framework for Sustainable Parasite Control. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liverpool, England, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  247. Morgan, E.R.; Lanusse, C.; Rinaldi, L.; Charlier, J.; Vercruysse, J. Confounding factors affecting faecal egg count reduction as a measure of anthelmintic efficacy. Parasite 2022, 29, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  248. Khusro, A.; Aarti, C.; Buendía-Rodriguez, G.; Arasu, M.V.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Barbabosa-Pliego, A. Adverse effect of antibiotics administration on horse health: An overview. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021, 97, 103339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. Jiménez, B.L.M.; Elghandour, M.M.; Adegbeye, M.J.; González, D.N.T.; Estrada, G.T.; Salem, A.Z.; Pacheco, E.B.F.; Pliego, A.B. Use of antibiotics in equines and their effect on metabolic health and cecal microflora activities. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2021, 105, 103717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Tallon, R.E.; Whitt, B.; Bladon, B.M. Antibiotic usage in 14 equine practices over a 10-year period (2012–2021). Equine Vet. J. 2024, 56, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Tuntasuvan, D.; Jarabrum, W.; Viseshakul, N.; Mohkaew, K.; Borisutsuwan, S.; Theeraphan, A.; Kongkanjana, N. Chemotherapy of surra in horses and mules with diminazene aceturate. Vet. Parasitol. 2003, 110, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Hébert, L.; Guitton, E.; Madeline, A.; Géraud, T.; Zientara, S.; Laugier, C.; Hans, A.; Büscher, P.; Cauchard, J.; Petry, S. Melarsomine hydrochloride (Cymelarsan®) fails to cure horses with Trypanosoma equiperdum OVI parasites in their cerebrospinal fluid. Vet. Parasitol. 2018, 264, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Grause, J.F.; Ueti, M.W.; Nelson, J.T.; Knowles, D.P.; Kappmeyer, L.S.; Bunn, T.O. Efficacy of imidocarb dipropionate in eliminating Theileria equi from experimentally infected horses. Vet. J. 2013, 196, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Ionita, M.; Nicorescu, I.M.; Pfister, K.; Mitrea, I.L. Parasitological and molecular diagnostic of a clinical Babesia caballi outbreak in Southern Romania. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 2333–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Herd, R.; Donham, J. Efficacy of ivermectin against cutaneous Draschia and Habronema infection (summer sores) in horses. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1981, 42, 1953–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Barrett, E.; Farlam, J.; Proudman, C.J. Field trial of the efficacy of a combination of ivermectin and praziquantel in horses infected with roundworms and tapeworms. Vet. Rec. 2004, 154, 323–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Mason, M.E.; Voris, N.D.; Ortis, H.A.; Geeding, A.A.; Kaplan, R.M. Comparison of a single dose of moxidectin and a five-day course of fenbendazole to reduce and suppress cyathostomin fecal egg counts in a herd of embryo transfer–recipient mares. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2014, 245, 944–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic overview of major transmission pathways of equine parasites. Hemoparasites, nematodes, protozoa, and other parasites in equines are transmitted via venereal, mechanical, tick-borne, oral, transplacental, and vascular routes depending on species.
Figure 1. Schematic overview of major transmission pathways of equine parasites. Hemoparasites, nematodes, protozoa, and other parasites in equines are transmitted via venereal, mechanical, tick-borne, oral, transplacental, and vascular routes depending on species.
Animals 15 03294 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart demonstrating Overview of diagnostic approaches for major equine parasites, including hemoparasites, piroplasms, gastrointestinal nematodes, protozoan reproductive pathogens, and others. Commonly used tools include serological assays, molecular techniques (PCR, qPCR), and microscopy or fecal examinations, applied depending on parasite type and infection stage.
Figure 2. Flowchart demonstrating Overview of diagnostic approaches for major equine parasites, including hemoparasites, piroplasms, gastrointestinal nematodes, protozoan reproductive pathogens, and others. Commonly used tools include serological assays, molecular techniques (PCR, qPCR), and microscopy or fecal examinations, applied depending on parasite type and infection stage.
Animals 15 03294 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ullah, A.; Geng, M.; Chen, W.; Zhu, Q.; Shi, L.; Zhang, X.; Akhtar, M.F.; Wang, C.; Khan, M.Z. Effect of Parasitic Infections on Hematological Profile, Reproductive and Productive Performance in Equines. Animals 2025, 15, 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15223294

AMA Style

Ullah A, Geng M, Chen W, Zhu Q, Shi L, Zhang X, Akhtar MF, Wang C, Khan MZ. Effect of Parasitic Infections on Hematological Profile, Reproductive and Productive Performance in Equines. Animals. 2025; 15(22):3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15223294

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ullah, Abd, Mingyang Geng, Wenting Chen, Qifei Zhu, Limeng Shi, Xuemin Zhang, Muhammad Faheem Akhtar, Changfa Wang, and Muhammad Zahoor Khan. 2025. "Effect of Parasitic Infections on Hematological Profile, Reproductive and Productive Performance in Equines" Animals 15, no. 22: 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15223294

APA Style

Ullah, A., Geng, M., Chen, W., Zhu, Q., Shi, L., Zhang, X., Akhtar, M. F., Wang, C., & Khan, M. Z. (2025). Effect of Parasitic Infections on Hematological Profile, Reproductive and Productive Performance in Equines. Animals, 15(22), 3294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15223294

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop