S YS T E M AT I C R E V I E W Open Access © The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​t​p​​:​/​/​​c​r​e​a​​t​i​​v​e​c​​o​m​m​​o​n​s​.​​o​r​​g​/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​/​4​.​0​/. Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-05077-0 BMC Veterinary Research †Lucy Gatitu and Mitchelle R Kasudi contributed equally to this work. *Correspondence: Dishon M. Muloi D.Muloi@cgiar.org 1Health Program, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya 2Department of Veterinary Pathology, Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya 3Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark 4Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK Abstract Background  Livestock across the globe are frequently infected with multiple gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) species, and the use of anthelmintics remains a cornerstone of their control. However, anthelmintic resistance (AHR) poses a growing threat to sustainable livestock production, resulting in reduced productivity and compromised animal health and welfare. Reports of resistance in various helminth species against multiple anthelmintic classes exist in African livestock; however, studies summarising the extent and burden of this resistance are limited, and systematic monitoring or surveillance efforts are largely absent across the continent. Methods  We conducted a comprehensive scoping review to evaluate the current status of AHR in African livestock. Results  Our systematic search yielded 357 original studies, 28 met the eligibility criteria, covering nine countries and spanning from 1996 to 2024. All studies involved cattle and/or small ruminants, focusing primarily on two anthelmintic classes—benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones—and two gastrointestinal nematode genera: Haemonchus and Trichostrongylus. Resistance was reported across most of the studies, although reported prevalence rates were highly heterogeneous, varying considerably with anthelmintic class, livestock species, and geographic location. We observed variability in study methodologies, including differences in faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) design, sampling intervals, dosage regimens, and reporting quality, which potentially limits comparability across countries and restricts epidemiological insight. Conclusions  These findings highlight the urgent need to more accurately quantify the burden of AHR and to establish coordinated surveillance systems across Africa. Equally important is the development of sustainable parasite control strategies and the promotion of responsible anthelmintic use to preserve the efficacy of existing drugs. Keywords  Gastrointestinal nematode, Anthelmintic resistance, Livestock, Africa Anthelmintic resistance in livestock in Africa: review of the current status Lucy Gatitu1,2†, Mitchelle R. Kasudi1†, Samuel Githigia2, Arshnee Moodley1,3 and Dishon M. Muloi1,4* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-05077-0 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s12917-025-05077-0&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2025-9-30 Page 2 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 Background Livestock production significantly contributes to house- hold income in Africa, with over 70% of households relying on it for up to 33.8% of their total income [1]. However, infections with helminth parasites, particularly gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN), pose a major threat to the profitability and sustainability of livestock systems. These infections are typically chronic and lead to sub- clinical losses, including reduced weight gain, lower meat and milk yields, diminished reproductive performance, and overall compromised animal health and welfare [2– 4]. A recent meta-analysis reported that GIN infections in sheep resulted in reductions of 58% in weight gain, 90% in wool production, and 78% in milk yield [2]. GIN infections are more prevalent in animals with outdoor access, such as cattle and small ruminants [5], but also found in indoor reared species such as pigs and poultry. Current control strategies rely heavily on the use of broad-spectrum anthelmintics, primarily benzimidazoles (e.g., albendazole), imidazothiazoles (e.g., levamisole), and macrocyclic lactones (e.g., ivermectin), administered either curatively or prophylactically [6]. However, the fre- quent administration of anthelmintics, often with incor- rect dosing or without rotation of different drug classes, has led to the development of anthelmintic resistance (AHR). The global and national burden of GIN infections and AHR remains unknown, but available data suggest that helminth infections cost the European livestock industry over $2 billion annually, with AHR alone accounting for an estimated $41 million in losses [7]. These economic costs are expected to rise due to the spread of resistant parasites, including multi-drug resistant strains. Addi- tionally, climate change is likely to exacerbate parasite transmission, leading to more frequent treatments and further resistance development [8]. In much of Africa, where helminths have long seasonal activity, anthel- mintic drugs are widely accessible and commonly used, often without veterinary guidance, resulting in rapid acceleration of AHR. Several studies have reported the occurrence of AHR in multiple helminth species against different anthelmintic classes in different livestock spe- cies [9]. Effective resistance management requires the ability to detect its presence and support drug-use deci- sions regarding effective treatments against target hel- minth populations. Routine anthelmintic efficacy testing in most countries is undertaken through the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) [10], which remains the gold standard recommended by the World Asso- ciation for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) [11]. Data is essential to measure the extent of this problem in Africa. However, robust data to assess the scale of AHR across the continent are scarce, and systematic monitoring or surveillance frameworks are currently lacking. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively map the scientific evidence reporting anthelmintic resistance in GINs in different livestock species in Africa. Our findings will support anthelmintic stewardship and development of effective parasite control strategies; and underscore the need for investment in routine surveillance systems and further research. Materials and methods Data sources, search strategy and screening We conducted a scoping review to collect evidence on the prevalence of AHR in livestock across African countries. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses exten- sion for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [12] (Supplemental material 2). A comprehensive search was conducted in three electronic databases – PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and CABI – using a combi- nation of search terms related to anthelmintic resistance (“anthelmintic resistance” OR “endoparasite resistance” OR “antiparasitic resistance” OR “nematode resistance” OR “benzimidazole resistance” OR “imidazothiazole resistance” OR “salicylanilide resistance” OR “tetrahydro- pyrimidine resistance” OR “macrocyclic lactones resis- tance”), food animals (cattle OR bovine OR sheep OR ovine OR goat OR caprine OR chicken OR poultry), and African countries. No date restrictions were applied, and the search included studies published up to 3 Febru- ary 2025. A detailed search strategy for each database is provided in the Supplemental material 1. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, original research articles reporting the prevalence of AHR using FECRT method in sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, or poultry in African countries. Case reports, review articles, and studies available in non-English full texts were excluded. Titles and abstracts retrieved from the database searches were screened for eligibility. Full texts of potentially eligi- ble articles were then reviewed in detail to confirm inclu- sion. Data extraction was performed using a standardised template. Initial screening and data extraction were con- ducted by one author (LG), with independent verification by a second author (DMM or MRK). Data extraction and synthesis of results One author (LG) extracted data from the full texts of eligible studies using a piloted, standardised data col- lection form. A second reviewer (MRK or DMM) inde- pendently verified all extracted information to ensure accuracy. Extracted data included: article title, first author, year of study and publication, study design, coun- try of study, number and age of animals treated, specific anthelmintic(s) or combinations used, diagnostic tests Page 3 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 employed, route of drug administration (oral or inject- able), dosage, and anthelmintic efficacy where available. Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. A score of 1 was assigned for each cri- terion met, 0.5 if partially met, and 0 if not met. Scores were calculated based on the responses to each question [13]. Appraisal scores were categorised as very low (≤ 25%), low (26–50%), moderate (51–75%), or high (> 75%). In line with established scoping review methodology, we used tabular and thematic approaches to summarise the extracted data. Descriptive statistics, including counts and proportions, were used to characterise the included studies. Anthelmintic efficacy was assessed using the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) where drug efficacy ≥ 95% indicates susceptibility in the parasite pop- ulation, while efficacy < 95% suggests resistance. Results Characteristics of included studies A total of 357 studies were identified through the data- base search. After removing duplicates, 200 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 129 were selected for full-text review. Ultimately, 28 articles met the inclu- sion criteria and were included in this scoping review (Fig.  1). The characteristics of each include study are detailed in Table 1. The included studies originated from nine African countries—representing 16.7% of the continent’s 54 nations—indicating limited geographical coverage. South Africa and Ethiopia each contributed six studies, fol- lowed by Uganda, Algeria, and Kenya with three studies each. Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Mozambique contributed two studies each, and Zambia contributed one (Fig. 2A). The selected articles were published between 1996 and 2024, with no clear linear publication trend. Notably, 68% (n = 19) of the included studies were published before 2014 (Fig. 2B). Among the 28 studies included, 12 (42.9%) investi- gated AHR exclusively in sheep, 10 (35.7%) in goats, and two (7.1%) in cattle. Three studies (10.7%) included both sheep and goats, while one (3.6%) assessed all three rumi- nant species. No studies evaluated AHR in non-ruminant livestock such as pigs or poultry. Resistance was investi- gated against five main anthelmintic classes either indi- vidually or in combination: benzimidazoles (albendazole, fenbendazole, oxfenbendazole, thiophanate, triclaben- dazole, febantel), imidazothiazoles (levamisole, tetrami- sole), salicylanilides (closantel, rafoxanide, tetraclozan), macrocyclic lactones (ivermectin, moxidectin, doramec- tin), and tetrahydropyrimidines (morantel). Benzimid- azoles were the commonly studied drug, reported in all 28 studies either singly or in combination, followed by imidazothiazoles in 21 studies (75%) and macrocyclic lac- tones in 16 studies (57.1%). Salicylanilides were evaluated Fig. 1  Study selection flowchart Page 4 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 A ut ho r Co un tr y Li ve st oc k sp ec ie s N um be r o f an im al s A nt he lm in tic Te st ed D os ag e Ro ut e of ad m in is tr at io n Effi ca cy <  95 % FE CR T D es ig n an d po st -t re at m en t sa m pl in g in te rv al H el m in th g en us B en to un si, e t al . 2 01 2  [1 4] Al ge ria Ca tt le 18 6 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 58 % − 83 % U np ai re d D ay 0 –2 0 Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us A ta na sio , e t al . 2 00 2  [1 5] M oz am bi qu e G oa ts 56 8 Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 43 –8 2. 9. 9% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 0 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us O es op ha go st om um Fe nb en da zo le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 49 –8 7. 6. 6% Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 87 .4 –9 3. 5% B er sis sa an d G irm a, 20 09  [1 6] Et hi op ia G oa ts 20 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 48 –6 7% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 2 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Te la do rs ag ia Te tr am iso le 22 .5  m g/ kg O ra l 80 –8 4% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 71 –7 8% W ar ui ru e t a l. 19 98 [1 7] Ke ny a G oa ts 13 00 Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 29 .0 % U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us O es op ha go st om um Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Th io ph an at e 50  m g/ kg O ra l 16 .9 % Le va m iso le 15  m g/ kg O ra l 62 .9 % Ra fo xa ni de 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 79 .2 % Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg O ra l S( 99 .8 % ) Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC S( 99 .2 % ) G et ac he w , e t al . 2 01 6  [1 8] Et hi op ia Sh ee p 14 1 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 57 .5 –9 2% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 St ro ng yl es Tr ic hu ris Te tr am iso le 15  m g/ kg O ra l S (9 8. 6– 10 0) Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 51 .7 –8 7. 6% B oe rs em a an d Pa nd ey 19 97  [1 9] Zi m ba bw e Sh ee p 40 Fe nb en da zo le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 0– 80 % U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us H ae m on ch us O es op ha go st om um Le va m iso le 5  m g/ kg SC 46 –9 1% Ra fo xa ni de 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 32 –7 9% M oh am - m ed sa lih e t a l. 20 20 [2 0] Su da n G oa ts 60 Al be nd az ol e U np ai re d FE CR T 5  m g/ g O ra l 85 .8 –8 7. 5% Pa ire d an d un pa ire d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Co op er ia 7. 5  m g/ kg 87 .1 % 10  m g/ kg 86 .5 –8 7. 3% 12 .5  m g/ kg 96 .6 % Pa ire d FE CR T 5  m g/ kg 54 .4 –9 0. 2% 7. 5  m g/ kg 93 .7 % 10  m g/ kg 87 .3 –8 9. 8% 12 .5  m g/ kg 97 .2 % W on di m u an d Ba yu 20 22  [2 1] Et hi op ia G oa ts 10 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 69 .9 % U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us H ae m on ch us Te la do rs ag ia Te tr ac lo za n 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 84 .3 % Te tr am iso le , 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l S (9 5. 7) % Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 71 .1 % M ph ah le le , e t al . 2 02 1  [2 2] So ut h Af ric a Sh ee p 20 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 47 –9 2% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Te la do rs ag ia Le va m iso le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 70 –9 4% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 65 –9 2% Ta bl e 1  D es cr ip tio n of se le ct ed st ud ie s Page 5 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 A ut ho r Co un tr y Li ve st oc k sp ec ie s N um be r o f an im al s A nt he lm in tic Te st ed D os ag e Ro ut e of ad m in is tr at io n Effi ca cy <  95 % FE CR T D es ig n an d po st -t re at m en t sa m pl in g in te rv al H el m in th g en us Ba ku nz i e t a l. 20 08 [2 3] So ut h Af ric a Sh ee p 48 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 68 –9 3% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us O es op ha go st om um Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 58 –9 1% Cl os an te l 5  m g/ kg O ra l 72 –9 4% N se re ko , e t a l. 20 13  [2 4] U ga nd a G oa ts 93 Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 77 .3 0% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us O es op ha go st om um Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 85 % Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 54 –9 2% By ar uh an ga e t al . 2 01 3 [2 5] U ga nd a G oa ts 71 Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 11 –2 8. 5. 5% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 3 H ae m on ch us Co op er ia O es op ha go st om um Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 84 .8 –9 1% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 78 .4 7% G ab rie l e t a l. 20 01 [2 6] Za m bi a Sh ee p 36 0 Al be nd az ol e 4  m g/ kg O ra l 48 –8 6% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l S( 95 –9 9. 4. 4% ) Iv er m ec tin 0. 2– 0. 3  m g/ kg O ra l 72 –9 4% C ha ka an d G iz aw 20 09 [2 7] Et hi op ia Sh ee p 12 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg N D 30 .4 % Pa ire d D ay 0 –2 1 fo r iv er m ec tin 0– 15 fo r a l- be nd az ol e an d te tr am iso le H ae m on ch us Te tr am iso le 15  m g/ kg 75 % Iv er m ec tin 0. 3  m g/ kg 78 .5 % D re ye r 2 00 2 [2 8] So ut h Af ric a Sh ee p 50 Al be nd az ol e 3. 8  m g/ kg O ra l 6. 3– 86 .9 % U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 0 N D Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 7. 9– 87 % Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg O ra l 76 .2 –8 7% M ox id ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg O ra l 94 .2 % M oh am - m ed sa lih e t a l. 20 21  [2 9] Su da n Ca tt le 12 3 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l U np ai re d: 88 .2 % − 93 .7 % Pa ire d an d un pa ire d 0- da y 14 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us O es op ha go st om um Ch er ba tia Pa ire d: 88 .5 –9 4. 6% N ab uk en ya , et a l. 20 14  [3 0] U ga nd a G oa ts 49 7 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 40 –9 4% U np ai re d D ay 0 –1 5 H ae m on ch us St ro ng yl oi de s Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Co op er ia Bu no st om um Le va m iso le 10 .5  m g/ kg O ra l 29 –9 2% Iv er m ec tin 0. 3  m g/ kg SC 54 –9 2% M uk ar at irw a et a l. 19 97 [3 1] Zi m ba bw e Sh ee p 22 6 Al be nd az ol e 10  m g/ kg O ra l 56 –8 7% Pa ire d D ay 0 –7 H ae m on ch us Co op er ia O xf en be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 82 .3 –8 2. 9% Fe nb en da zo le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 83 .3 % Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 89 .9 % Iv er m ec tin 0. 02  m g/ kg SC S (1 00 % ) Ta bl e 1  (c on tin ue d) Page 6 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 A ut ho r Co un tr y Li ve st oc k sp ec ie s N um be r o f an im al s A nt he lm in tic Te st ed D os ag e Ro ut e of ad m in is tr at io n Effi ca cy <  95 % FE CR T D es ig n an d po st -t re at m en t sa m pl in g in te rv al H el m in th g en us T so te ts i, et a l. 20 13 [3 2] So ut h Af ric a Sh ee p 12 0 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 56 –7 6% Pa ire d D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us Te la do rs ag ia Le va m iso le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 81 –8 7% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 76 –8 7% G oa ts 80 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 22 –7 7% Le va m iso le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 60 –9 2% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC I: 27 % B en to un si et al . 2 00 7  [3 3] Al ge ria Sh ee p 19 2 Al be nd az ol e 3. 8  m g/ kg O ra l 21 –9 4% U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 0 Te la do rs ag ia Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us M ar sh al la gi a N em at od iru s Iv er m ec tin 0. 00 02  m g/ kg SC 24 –8 9% M ol la , e t a l. 20 23  [3 4] Et hi op ia Sh ee p 73 5 Al be nd az ol e N D N D 68 –9 3. 5. 5% U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 St ro ng yl id Fa sc io la Tr ic la be nd az ol e B ak un zi 20 03  [3 5] So ut h Af ric a G oa ts 40 0 Fe nb en da zo le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 47 –8 8% U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us O es op ha go st om um Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 76 –9 3% Ra fo xa ni de 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 31 –9 1% W an ya ng u, e t al . 1 99 6  [3 6] Ke ny a Sh ee p 13 28 Al be nd az ol e Le va m iso le N D N D N D U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us O es op ha go st om um G oa ts 98 9 Al be nd az ol e Le va m iso le M ai ng i, et a l. 19 98  [3 7] Ke ny a Sh ee p N D Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l N D U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Le va m iso le 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l Fe ba nt el 5  m g/ kg O ra l B en to un si, e t al . 2 00 6  [3 8] Al ge ria Sh ee p 29 Al be nd az ol e N D N D 71 % U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 0 St ro ng le s Fe nb en da zo le 77 % A ta ná sio - N ha cu m be , e t al . 2 01 7  [3 9] M oz am bi qu e G oa ts 33 5 Al be nd az ol e 5  m g/ kg O ra l 0– 81 % U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us O es op ha go st om um Tr ic ho st ro ng yl us St ro ng yl oi de s E m sle y et a l. 20 23  [4 0] So ut h Af ric a Sh ee p G oa ts 13 0 11 9 Al be nd az ol e 7. 5  m g/ kg O ra l 3. 81 –7 2. 15 % FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 H ae m on ch us Le va m iso le 5  m g/ kg O ra l 10 –7 2. 95 .9 5% Iv er m ec tin 0. 2  m g/ kg SC 43 .6 6– 54 .6 6% Ta bl e 1  (c on tin ue d) Page 7 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 in five studies (17.9%). A total of 10 different parasite gen- era were reported across the 28 studies. Haemonchus spp was the most frequently reported parasite, investigated in 21 studies (75%). Trichostrongylus spp. were reported in 16 studies (57.1%), Oesophagostomum spp. in 10 (35.7%), Teladorsagia spp. In 6 (21.4%), and Cooperia spp. in 4 (14.3%). Less frequently reported were Strongyloides (2 studies (7.1%), Bunostomum, Trichuris, Cherbatia, Mar- shallagia, and Nematodirus (each in 1 study, 3.6%). Methodological quality assessment Across the 28 studies, the majority (n = 22, 78.6%) employed an unpaired FECRT design, in which you com- pare treated animals to untreated controls. Three studies (10.7%) used a paired design [27, 31, 32], following the same animals before and after treatment, while two stud- ies (7.1%) applied both approaches [20, 29]. In one of the studies using both approaches, paired approach yielded lower efficacy estimates compared to unpaired approach [20] (Unpaired: 85.8–87.5% vs. paired 54.4–90.2% for 5% albendazole) while in the second study both approaches showed close agreement (Unpaired: 88.2%−93.7% vs. Paired: 88.5–94.6% for 7.5% albendazole) [29]. Post- treatment sampling intervals were generally consistent with WAAVP recommendations. Most studies collected samples on day 14 (n = 18, 64.3%), followed by day 10 (n = 4, 14.3%), while day 7, day 12, day 13, day 20 and day 21 were each reported in a single study (3.6% each), and two studies reporting day 15 (3.6%). Sample sizes varied considerably across studies, ranging from 29 to 1,328 ani- mals. Most studies (57.1%, n = 18) enrolled between 100 and 500 animals, while 21.4% (n = 6) included fewer than 100 animals and 14.3% (n = 5) had more than 500. Larger sample sizes were mostly reported in sheep and goat studies, whereas cattle studies were fewer and typically involved smaller cohorts of around 120–186 animals. Dosage regimens varied both across drug classes and even within the same host species. Albendazole showed the widest range, administered at doses ranging from 3.8 mg/kg to 12.5 mg/kg, with one study using 3.8 mg/ kg, eight studies using 5 mg/kg, seven studies using 7.5 mg/kg, two studies using 10 mg/kg, and one study testing 12.5 mg/kg. Nearly one-third of studies (n = 10, 35.7%) were rated as low quality, 11 (39.3%) were of moderate quality, and seven (25%) achieved a high-quality rating (Supplemental Table S1). When assessed by quality domain, reporting was strongest in the description of the anthelmintic inter- vention including drug, dosage, and route of administra- tion, as well as in the method of parasite identification and quantification (each mean score 0.9). The FECRT procedure and efficacy threshold were also generally well described (mean score 0.83). In contrast, reporting of the study design (mean score 0.70) and the target animal A ut ho r Co un tr y Li ve st oc k sp ec ie s N um be r o f an im al s A nt he lm in tic Te st ed D os ag e Ro ut e of ad m in is tr at io n Effi ca cy <  95 % FE CR T D es ig n an d po st -t re at m en t sa m pl in g in te rv al H el m in th g en us M au riz io , e t al . 2 02 4  [4 1] Et hi op ia Ca tt le 12 0 Al be nd az ol e N D O ra l 52 .2 –6 8. 1% U np ai re d FE CR T D ay 0 –1 4 N D Te tr am iso le O ra l 94 .2 % Iv er m ec tin SC 56 .5 –7 3. 8% G oa ts 12 0 Al be nd az ol e O ra l 82 .5 –9 1. 5% Te tr am iso le O ra l S Iv er m ec tin SC 88 .8 –9 4. 8% Sh ee p 12 0 Al be nd az ol e O ra l 85 .1 –9 1. 1% Te tr am iso le O ra l 92 .1 % Iv er m ec tin SC 93 .4 –9 4. 1% *N D  N ot d efi ne d, S  S us ce pt ib le , S C su bc ut an eo us Ta bl e 1  (c on tin ue d) Page 8 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 species and sourcing (mean score 0.69) was less consis- tent. Only six studies clearly differentiated helminth egg species in their FECR reporting (mean score 0.22), and just one study accounted for sample size or incorporated a formal power calculation. Resistance to benzimidazoles Of the 28 studies reporting benzimidazole resistance, 26 (93.9%) documented resistance to albendazole, five (17.9%) to fenbendazole, and one each (3.6%) to oxfen- bendazole and thiophanate. Efficacy within this class was highly variable, with albendazole showing the widest range. Nearly half of the studies (42.9%, n = 12) on alben- dazole reported efficacy below 50%, including complete treatment failure in goats in Mozambique (0% efficacy) [39], 11–28.5.5% in goats in Uganda [25], 29% in goats in Kenya [17], and 3.8–72.1% in South African small ruminants [40]. In contrast, other studies demonstrated higher efficacy. Fenbendazole efficacy also varied widely, with 40% (n = 2) of studies reporting reductions below 50% (0–80% in sheep in Zimbabwe [19], 47–88% in goats in South Africa [35]). Resistance to imidazothiazoles Among the 21 studies that assessed resistance to imid- azothiazoles, 16 (81.3%) evaluated levamisole and five (23.8%) tetramisole. Levamisole generally showed better efficacy, with most studies reporting rates above 80%. For example, efficacy reached 85% in goats in Uganda [24, 25], 89.9% in sheep in Zimbabwe [31], 76–93% in sheep and goats in South Africa [35] and goats in Mozambique [15]. However, approximately one-third of the studies (30.7%, n = 4) documented efficacy values below 50%, with the lowest reported at 7.9% in sheep in South Africa [28]. Tetramisole showed generally higher efficacy, with all studies reporting rates greater than 75%. Resistance to salicylanilides Five studies assessed resistance to salicylanilides, includ- ing three on rafoxanide, one on closantel, and one on tetraclozan. Rafoxanide showed high efficacy in most studies; however, two reported lower efficacy rates, with values as low as 31% [35] in goats in South Africa and 32% in sheep in Zimbabwe [19]. Closantel demonstrated consistently high efficacy (72–94%) in South African sheep [23], while tetraclozan achieved 84.3% in goats in Ethiopia [21]. Resistance to macrocyclic lactones Resistance to ivermectin was reported in 16 studies (57.1%), with efficacy ranging widely. Two studies docu- mented efficacy below 50%, including 24% in Algeria [33], 27% in goats in South Africa [32],and 43% in sheep in South Africa [40]. Moderate reductions were reported in Uganda (54–92%) [30] and Ethiopia (51.7–87.6%) [18], while higher efficacy was observed in Zambia (72–94%) [42] and Kenya, where both oral and subcutaneous dos- ing achieved >99% [17]. A multi-host study from Ethiopia highlighted variability by species, with efficacy lowest in cattle (56.5–73.8%) compared to goats (88.8–94.8%) and sheep (93.4–94.1%) [41]. Moxidectin was evaluated in Fig. 2   A-B. A Regional distribution of included studies. B Number of studies published over time. The left y-axis shows the annual number of papers, while the right y-axis and trend line represent the cumulative total of studies Page 9 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 a single study and demonstrated high efficacy of 94.2% [28]. Discussion Our findings highlight a striking scarcity of data on AHR in livestock across Africa. Given that the conti- nent is home to more than a quarter of the global live- stock population – comprising 20% of the world’s cattle, 27% of sheep, and 32% of goats [43] – and these numbers are rising, the limited number of studies in our review underscores a critical research and surveillance gap. It is indisputable that anthelmintic resistance constitutes a substantial component of the broader antimicrobial resistance (AMR) challenge in livestock [6]. Yet, research and surveillance on anthelmintic resistance remain largely excluded from funding priorities and implemen- tation strategies aimed at understanding and address- ing AMR. The disproportionate focus on bacterial AMR in animal health, primarily driven by public health rea- sons, is concerning, as effective anthelmintic protection is essential not only for animal health but also for food security across the region. There is a pressing need for increased funding to support the development of these systems, strengthen laboratory infrastructure, harmonise field and laboratory standard operating procedures, and improve coordination between animal health policy mak- ers, livestock producers, and users of anthelmintics. We call for renewed national and regional efforts to establish and operationalise robust anthelmintic resistance surveil- lance systems. Whilst most studies broadly adhered to WAAVP guide- lines on FECRT implementation, methodological incon- sistencies limit the comparability and interpretability of results across settings and host species. For example, minimal description of study design such as animal selec- tion or lack of standardisation in dosing regimens even within the same host species. Likewise, limited differen- tiation of helminth species in FECRT results constrains the ability to link resistance patterns to specific parasites, hindering epidemiological insights needed for targeted control. In 2023, WAAVP issued updated guidelines to improve methodology and standardisation of FECRT in livestock with an aim of supporting researchers, prac- titioners, and policymakers in the diagnosis and clas- sification of AHR [44]. These guidelines recommend prioritising paired study designs over unpaired ones, bas- ing requirements on the total number of eggs counted rather than mean EPG, and allowing flexible treatment group sizes according to expected egg counts. Collectively, the studies reviewed demonstrate evi- dence of resistance to commonly used anthelmintics across multiple livestock species and African countries. Several factors are likely contributing to this observa- tion. First, the frequent and often indiscriminate use of anthelmintics, whether given prophylactically or at low doses due to cost [45] and the heavy reliance on a few drug classes like benzimidazoles (e.g., albendazole), macrocyclic lactones (e.g., ivermectin), and imidazothia- zoles (e.g., levamisole). In addition, poor farm manage- ment practices, such as the absence of pasture rotation and high stocking densities [46], combined with the lack of systematic monitoring programs for detecting resistance contributes to the continued use of ineffec- tive treatments [47]. The rapid emergence of resistance to new anthelmintic classes, often within a decade of their introduction [48], is a growing concern [49]. With no new broad-spectrum anthelmintics featuring novel mechanisms of action developed since the introduc- tion of macrocyclic lactones in the 1980 s [50], the threat posed by anthelmintic resistance is particularly serious. Climate change is also expected to accelerate the spread and severity of parasitism [8, 51, 52]. Rising temperatures and prolonged transmission seasons will increase para- site burdens and treatment frequency, which, in turn, will hasten resistance development. Understanding the interaction between climate change and AHR is there- fore essential to devising long-term, sustainable control strategies [53]. In light of anticipated climate shifts, tran- sitioning toward non-chemical parasite control methods are likely to become increasingly critical. In recent years, considerable effort has gone into quantifying the eco- nomic impact of GIN infections and AHR in livestock, but most analyses are limited to high income settings [7]. Quantifying these hidden losses would provide produc- ers actionable information for on-farm decision-making and incentivise the uptake of non-pharmaceutical control measures while giving veterinary authorities the evidence base to advocate—credibly—for investment in surveil- lance and targeted intervention programmes. All studies reviewed focused on cattle and/or small ruminants and primarily examined two classes of anthel- mintics, benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones and two GINs Haemonchus spp and Trichostrongylus spp. The emphasis on ruminants likely reflects both ecologi- cal factors, particularly their high susceptibility to gas- trointestinal nematodes due to grazing behaviour, and historical research priorities. Similarly, the predominance of benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones corresponds with their widespread use in livestock across sub-Saharan Africa, driven by factors such as affordability, accessibil- ity, and ease of administration [54, 55].The dominance of Haemonchus and Trichostrongylus in the dataset likely reflects their high pathogenic potential and adaptive capacity, as well as their well-documented resistance pro- files [56].These findings should inform the strategic prior- itisation of AHR surveillance efforts across the continent, focusing on key parasite genera, anthelmintic classes, and livestock species. Page 10 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 The FECR test was the most widely used method for assessing anthelmintic efficacy in vivo and estimating the prevalence of resistance in our review. The lack of stan- dardized FECR calculation methods across studies—with some comparing treated and control groups, and others focusing on pre- and post-treatment counts—could lead to discrepancies in the interpretation and comparison of resistance levels. According to the most recent WAAVP guidelines, FECR should be calculated using a paired design (pre- and post-treatment faecal egg counts from the same animals) as this approach enhances statistical power, controls for inter-animal variability, and yields more robust estimates of anthelmintic efficacy than post- treatment comparisons between treated and control groups [44]. Further, the FECR test is constrained by low sensitivity, high costs, reliance on laboratory infrastruc- ture, and labour-intensive sampling making it largely inaccessible to veterinarians and farmers across African countries and thus limiting its utility in targeted anthel- mintic stewardship. Veterinary authorities should priori- tise expanding access (and affordability) to anthelmintic resistance diagnostics across regional laboratories, com- plementing existing investments in antibiotic resistance surveillance. A key scientific priority remains the devel- opment of rapid, reliable tools and protocols for early detection of anthelmintic resistance, to support timely and effective responses. This scoping review has several limitations. First, our literature search was limited to English-language articles and did not include grey literature or supplementary search strategies such as citation tracking. Consequently, relevant studies may have been omitted. Second, data screening and extraction were initially performed by a single reviewer; although these data were subsequently verified by a second reviewer and discrepancies were resolved through team consensus, inadvertent errors or missed information cannot be completely ruled out. Third, the limited number of identified studies and their narrow geographic coverage - encompassing only nine African countries - should be considered when inter- preting our findings. Finally, some of the included stud- ies provided insufficient details regarding data sources or clear descriptions of their methodological approaches, potentially affecting the robustness and interpretability of the synthesized evidence. Conclusion, recommendations and implications for decision-making Our scoping review highlights clear evidence of AHR in livestock across Africa; however, research in this area remains disproportionately limited relative to the scale and significance of the continent’s livestock sec- tor. Several key recommendations arise from our find- ings. Firstly, increased investment and research from a wider range of African countries is essential to gener- ate comprehensive, geographically representative data on AHR. Currently, the limited available data reflect broader global neglect of AHR within the antimicrobial resistance agenda, which tends to prioritise bacterial pathogens. Yet, the implications of AHR are profound, including diminished animal health and productivity, higher treatment costs, and increased susceptibility to climate-driven parasitic challenges. Secondly, establish- ing standardised surveillance systems to systematically monitor AHR development and spread should be a high priority for governments. Such surveillance should rou- tinely gather basic clinical, epidemiological, drug-efficacy data, and climatic data where possible. Thirdly, veterinary authorities should advocate policies restricting routine prophylactic anthelmintic use, promoting instead tar- geted, evidence-based treatment strategies that prioritize high-risk animal populations and geographical hotspots. The development and broader adoption of non-chemical parasite control methods are essential, particularly given increased climate variability and a lack of novel anthel- mintic classes. Finally, quantifying the economic impacts of GIN infections and associated AHR in African live- stock is critical to guide investment decisions, inform policy development, and support sustainable livestock production and livelihoods. Addressing these gaps will require strengthened collaboration among governments, funding agencies, animal health authorities, researchers, veterinary professionals, and livestock producers. Abbreviations AHR � Anthelmintic resistance AMR � Antimicrobial resistance FECRT � Faecal egg count reduction test GIN � Gastrointestinal nematode PRISMA-ScR � Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​ g​/​​1​0​.​​1​1​8​6​​/​s​​1​2​9​1​7​-​0​2​5​-​0​5​0​7​7​-​0. Supplementary Material 1. Supplementary Material 2. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions LG: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, writing original draft, Writing – review and editing; MRK: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, writing original draft, Writing – review and editing; SG: Supervision, Writing – review and editing; AM: Conceptualisation, Writing – review and editing; DMM: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, writing original draft, Writing – review and editing. All authors reviewed the manuscript, provided comments, and approved the final version of the manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-05077-0 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-05077-0 Page 11 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 Funding All authors were supported by the CGIAR Initiative-Protecting human health through a One Health approach and the CGIAR Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods (SAAF) Science Program. We also acknowledge the CGIAR Fund Donors: ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​w​w​w​​.​c​​g​i​a​​r​.​o​​r​g​/​f​​u​n​​d​e​r​s​/. Data availability The dataset analysed during the current study is provided in the manuscript text. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Received: 1 July 2025 / Accepted: 22 September 2025 References 1. Herrero M, Grace D, Njuki J, Johnson N, Enahoro D, Silvestri S, et al. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal. 2013;7(s1):3–18. 2. Mavrot F, Hertzberg H, Torgerson P. Effect of gastro-intestinal nematode infec- tion on sheep performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:1–11. 3. van der Voort M, Charlier J, Lauwers L, Vercruysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G, Van Meensel J. Conceptual framework for analysing farm-specific economic effects of helminth infections in ruminants and control strategies. Prev Vet Med. 2013;109(3–4):228–35. 4. Fitzpatrick J. Global food security: the impact of veterinary parasites and parasitologists. Vet Parasitol. 2013;195(3–4):233–48. 5. Baiak BHB, Lehnen CR, da Rocha RA. Anthelmintic resistance in cattle: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Livest Sci. 2018;217:127–35. 6. Rose Vineer H, Morgan ER, Hertzberg H, Bartley DJ, Bosco A, Charlier J, et al. Increasing importance of anthelmintic resistance in European livestock: creation and meta-analysis of an open database. Parasite. 2020;27:69. 7. Charlier J, Rinaldi L, Musella V, Ploeger HW, Chartier C, Vineer HR, et al. Initial assessment of the economic burden of major parasitic helminth infections to the ruminant livestock industry in Europe. Prev Vet Med. 2020;182:105103. 8. Sauermann CW, Leathwick DM, Lieffering M, Nielsen MK. Climate change is likely to increase the development rate of anthelmintic resistance in equine cyathostomins in new Zealand. Int J Parasitology: Drugs Drug Resist. 2020;14:73–9. 9. Falzon LC, O’Neill TJ, Menzies PI, Peregrine AS, Jones-Bitton A, vanLeeuwen J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with anthelmintic resistance in sheep. Prev Vet Med. 2014;117(2):388–402. 10. Kaplan RM. Biology. Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of anthel- mintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of livestock. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2020;36(1):17–30. 11. Geurden T, Smith ER, Vercruysse J, Yazwinski T, Settje T, Nielsen MK. World association for the advancement of veterinary parasitology (WAAVP) guide- line for the evaluation of the efficacy of anthelmintics in food-producing and companion animals: general guidelines. Vet Parasitol. 2022;304:109698. 12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. 13. Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. JBI’s systematic reviews: data extraction and synthesis. AJN Am J Nurs. 2014;114(7):54–49. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​​1​0​9​7​​/​0​​1​.​ N​​A​J​.​​0​0​0​0​​4​5​​1​6​8​3​.​6​6​4​4​7​.​8​9. 14. Bentounsi B, Khaznadar A, Cabaret J. Resistance of trichostrongylus spp. (Nematoda) to benzimidazole in Algerian cattle herds grazed with sheep. Parasitol Res. 2012;110(2):1021–3. 15. Atanasio A, Boomker J, Sitoe C. A survey on the occurrence of resistance to anthelmintics of Gastrointestinal nematodes of goats in Mozambique. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2002;69(3):215–20. 16. Bersissa K, Girma A. Multiple anthelmintic resistance on a goat farm in Hawassa (southern Ethiopia). Trop Anim Health Prod. 2009;41(4):655–62. 17. Waruiru RM, Kogi JK, Weda EH, Ngotho JW. Multiple anthelmintic resistance on a goat farm in Kenya. Vet Parasitol. 1998;75(2–3):191–7. 18. Getachew T, Muktar Y, Mekonnen N, Tesma F. Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes and efficacy of commonly used anthelmintics in different sheep breeds in Areka agricultural research Center, Areka, Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2016;28:117. 19. Boersema JH, Pandey VS. Anthelmintic resistance of trichostrongylids in sheep in the highveld of Zimbabwe. Vet Parasitol. 1997;68(4):383–8. 20. Mohammedsalih KM, Krücken J, Khalafalla A, Bashar A, Juma F-R, Abakar A, et al. New codon 198 β-tubulin polymorphisms in highly benzimidazole resistant Haemonchus contortus from goats in three different States in Sudan. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):114. 21. Wondimu A, Bayu Y. Anthelmintic drug resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes of naturally infected goats in haramaya, Ethiopia. J Parasitol Res. 2022;(1):4025902. ​h​t​t​p​​s​:​/​​/​d​o​i​​.​o​​r​g​/​​1​0​.​​1​1​5​5​​/​2​​0​2​2​/​4​0​2​5​9​0​2. 22. Mphahlele M, Tsotetsi-Khambule AM, Moerane R, Komape DM, Thekisoe OM. Anthelmintic resistance and prevalence of Gastrointestinal nematodes infect- ing sheep in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Vet World. 2021;14(2):302. 23. Bakunzi FR. Efficacy of 3 anthelmintics in communally grazed sheep as reflected by faecal egg count reduction tests in a semi-arid area of South Africa. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2008;79(1):54–5. 24. Nsereko G, Emudong P, Magona JW, Odoch T, Okwee-Acai J. Anthelmintic efficacy of albendazole, levamisole and ivermectin against gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infections in goats on natural pastures in Gomba District, Uganda. Uganda J Agricultural Sci. 2013;14(1):75–85. 25. Byaruhanga C, Okwee-Acai J. Efficacy of albendazole, levamisole and Iver- mectin against gastro-intestinal nematodes in naturally infected goats at the National semi-arid resources research institute, Serere, Uganda. Vet Parasitol. 2013;195(1/2):183–6. 26. Gabrie S, Phiri IK, Dorny P, Vercruysse J. A survey on anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of sheep in Lusaka, Zambia. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2001;68(4):271–4. 27. Chaka H, Gizaw D. Multiple anthelmintics resistant Haemonchus contortus in Dorper sheep imported from Republic of South Africa to Ethiopia. Ethiop Veterinary J. 2009;13(1):31–9. 28. Dreyer FH. A preliminary undifferentiated faecal egg count reduction test survey in the Caledon area. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2002;73(1):23–5. 29. Mohammedsalih KM, Krucken J, Bashar A, Juma F-R, Abdalmalaik AAH, Khalafalla A, et al. Susceptible trichostrongyloid species mask presence of benzimidazole-resistant Haemonchus contortus in cattle. Parasit Vectors. 2021;14(1):101. 30. Nabukenya I, Rubaire-Akiiki C, Olila D, Muhangi D, Hoglund J. Anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes in goats and evaluation of FAMA- CHA diagnostic marker in Uganda. Vet Parasitol. 2014;205(3–4):666–75. 31. Mukaratirwa S, Charakupa R, Hove T. A survey of anthelmintic resistance on ten sheep farms in Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 1997;68(4):140–3. 32. Tsotetsi AM, Njiro S, Katsande TC, Moyo G, Baloyi F, Mpofu J. Prevalence of gastrointestinal helminths and anthelmintic resistance on small-scale farms in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013;45(3):751–61. 33. Bentounsi B, Attir B, Meradi S, Cabaret J. Repeated treatment faecal egg counts to identify gastrointestinal nematode resistance in a context of low-level infection of sheep on farms in Eastern Algeria. Vet Parasitol. 2007;144(1–2):104–10. 34. Molla W, Moliso MM, Gizaw S, Nane T, Arke A, Ayele F, et al. Ovine gastrointes- tinal parasite burden and the impact of strategic anthelmintic treatment in community-based breeding sites in Ethiopia. Front Vet Sci. 2023;10:1094672. 35. Bakunzi FR. Anthelmintic resistance of nematodes in communally grazed goats in a semi-arid area of South Africa. J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2003;74(3):82–3. 36. Wanyangu SW, Bain RK, Rugutt MK, Nginyi JM, Mugambi JM. Anthel- mintic resistance amongst sheep and goats in Kenya. Prev Vet Med. 1996;25(3/4):285–90. 37. Maingi N, Bjørn H, Gichohi VM, Munyua WK, Gathuma JM. Resistance to benzimidazoles and levamisole in nematode parasites of sheep in Nyandarua district of Kenya. Acta Trop. 1998;69(1):31–40. https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000451683.66447.89 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000451683.66447.89 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4025902 Page 12 of 12Gatitu et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2025) 21:615 38. Bentounsi B, Trad R, Gaous N, Kohil K, Cabaret J. Gastrointestinal nema- tode resistance to benzimidazoles on a sheep farm in Algeria. Vet Rec. 2006;158(18):634–5. 39. Atanásio-Nhacumbe A, Ayres MCC, Lambert SM, Souza BP. Anthelmintic resistance in gastrointestinal nematodes of goats in Southern Mozambique. J Veterinary Med Anim Health. 2017;9(11):313–9. 40. Emsley E, Matshotshi A, Mathebula E, Mohlakoana S, Ramatla T, Thekisoe O, et al. Assessment of Gastrointestinal nematode anthelmintic resistance and acaricidal efficacy of fluazuron-flumethrin on sheep and goat ticks in the North West Province of South Africa. Vet World. 2023;16(8):1615–26. 41. Maurizio A, Terfa W, Kumsa B, Ayana D, Bekele H, Zoroaster A, et al. Practices and efficacy of nematode control in sheep, goats and cattle in communal grazing settings of central Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2024;56(9):387. 42. Gabriel S, Phiri I, Dorny P, Vercruysse J. A survey on anthelmintic resistance in nematode parasites of sheep in Lusaka, Zambia. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2001;68(4):271–4. 43. Gilbert M, Nicolas G, Cinardi G, Van Boeckel TP, Vanwambeke SO, Wint GRW, et al. Global distribution data for cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Sci Data. 2018;5(1):180227. 44. Kaplan RM, Denwood MJ, Nielsen MK, Thamsborg SM, Torgerson PR, Gilleard JS, et al. World association for the advancement of veterinary parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) guideline for diagnosing anthelmintic resistance using the fae- cal egg count reduction test in ruminants, horses and swine. Vet Parasitol. 2023;318:109936. 45. Sautier M, Chiron P. Challenges and opportunities for reducing anthelmintic use in ruminant livestock systems: insights from a sheep farmer survey in France. Prev Vet Med. 2023;221:106078. 46. Bellet C. Change it or perish? Drug resistance and the dynamics of livestock farm practices. J Rural Stud. 2018;63:57–64. 47. Charlier J, Rinaldi L, Morgan ER, Claerebout E, Bartley DJ, Sotiraki S, et al. Sustainable worm control in ruminants in Europe: current perspectives. Anim Front. 2024;14(5):13–23. 48. Kaplan RM. Drug resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance: a status report. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20(10):477–81. 49. Fissiha W, Kinde MZ. Anthelmintic resistance and its mechanism: a review. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:5403–10. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​​​/​​/​d​o​​i​.​​o​r​​g​​/​​1​0​​.​2​1​​​4​7​​/​​I​D​R​.​S​3​3​2​3​7​8. 50. Ihler CF. Anthelmintic resistance. An overview of the situation in the Nordic countries. Acta Vet Scand. 2010;52(Suppl 1):S24. 51. Nielsen MK, Sauermann CW, Leathwick DM. The effect of climate, season, and treatment intensity on anthelmintic resistance in cyathostomins: A modelling exercise. Vet Parasitol. 2019;269:7–12. 52. Van Dijk J, Sargison N, Kenyon F, Skuce P. Climate change and infectious dis- ease: helminthological challenges to farmed ruminants in temperate regions. Animal. 2010;4(3):377–92. 53. Nielsen MK, Kaplan RM, Abbas G, Jabbar A. Biological implications of long- term anthelmintic treatment: what else besides resistance are we selecting for? Trends Parasitol. 2023;39(11):945–53. 54. Gemeda BA, Amenu K, Magnusson U, Dohoo I, Hallenberg GS, Alemayehu G, et al. Antimicrobial use in extensive smallholder livestock farming systems in Ethiopia: knowledge, attitudes, and practices of livestock keepers. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:55. 55. Kimeli P, Mwacalimba K, Tiernan R, Mijten E, Miroshnychenko T, Nautrup BP. Important diseases of small ruminants in sub-Saharan Africa: a review with a focus on current strategies for treatment and control in smallholder systems. Animals. 2025;15(5):706. 56. Mpofu TJ, Nephawe KA, Mtileni B. Prevalence and resistance to gastrointesti- nal parasites in goats: a review. Vet World. 2022;15(10):2442. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S332378 Anthelmintic resistance in livestock in Africa: review of the current status Abstract Background Materials and methods Data sources, search strategy and screening Data extraction and synthesis of results Results Characteristics of included studies Methodological quality assessment Resistance to benzimidazoles Resistance to imidazothiazoles Resistance to salicylanilides Resistance to macrocyclic lactones Discussion Conclusion, recommendations and implications for decision-making References