2023 Call for Abstracts
AAVP 2023 Annual Meeting
Building for the Future - the Future is Now
June 10-13, 2023
Hilton Lexington Downtown, Lexington, KY
Deadline was: April 10, 2023
Guidelines for Abstract Submission and Format
The submission portal allows you to submit your abstract and make changes until 11:59 PM on April 10, 2023, so there is no need to wait until the last second to submit your abstract. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact the Program Chair, Jennifer Ketzis, firstname.lastname@example.org. Also remember, final acceptance of your abstract is contingent on confirmation of receipt of the registration fee.
You must use Arial 11 pt font. The word limit for abstract text (excluding title, author names and affiliations) is 300. For authors, list the organization and not the author’s position. For the title, please keep capitals to a minimum. Only the first letter of the first word, scientific names, months and proper nouns should be in capitals. There should be no period at the end of the title. The abstract must be one paragraph. Structured abstracts will not be accepted. The abstract should include the objective of the work, the materials and methods, results and conclusion. Abstracts may not contain tables or references. If the work entails the use of animals or human samples or surveys, please include an ethics statement, either approval through an IACUC or IRB. Common errors to avoid include:
- Starting sentences with an abbreviated scientific name
- Not italicizing scientific names
- Starting a sentence with a number vs writing out the number
The program committees/chair reserves the right to modify abstract formatting to comply with proceeding publication needs.
To submit your abstract prepare it first in a Word file, checking spelling and punctuation for accuracy. Then copy and paste it into the text box as indicated at the submission portal. Titles need to be pasted into the “title” text box and need to be in sentence case (see example below). Abstracts will be pasted into the “abstract” text box. You likely will lose formatting following the copy and paste, so check the text and add formatting (italics, etc) as needed. Also – be careful of using non-standard symbols, as these likely will also not transfer following the paste.
Ivermectin and moxidectin: Shortened equine strongylid egg reappearance periods investigated
Macrocyclic lactones (MLs) have been the most widely used drugs for equine parasite control during the past four decades. Unlike ivermectin, moxidectin possesses efficacy against encysted cyathostomin larvae, and has persistent efficacy claims with substantially longer egg reappearance periods (ERPs). However, shortened ERPs have been reported recently for both MLs, and these findings have raised several questions: 1. Are ERP patterns different between ivermectin and moxidectin? 2. Are shortened ERPs associated with certain cyathostomin species or stages? 3. How does moxidectin’s larvicidal efficacy affect ERP? To address these questions, 36 horses, aged 2-5 years old, were randomly allocated to three treatment groups: 1. Moxidectin, 2. Ivermectin, and 3. Untreated control (IACUC #2018-3134). Strongylid fecal egg counts were measured on a weekly basis, and ERP was five weeks for both compounds. Strongylid worm counts were determined for all horses: 18 were necropsied at two weeks post treatment (PT), and the remaining 18 at five weeks PT. Worms were identified to species morphologically as well as by ITS-2 rDNA metabarcoding. Moxidectin and ivermectin were 99.9% and 99.8% efficacious against adults at two weeks post treatment, whereas the efficacy against luminal L4s was 89.0% and 78.7%, respectively. At five weeks PT, adulticidal efficacy was 93.3% and 75.6% for moxidectin and ivermectin, respectively, while the efficacy against L4s was <30% for both drugs. Moxidectin reduced early L3 counts by 18.1% and 8.0% at the two time intervals, while the efficacies against late L3s and mucosal L4s were 60.4% and 21.2% at the same time intervals, respectively. The luminal L4s surviving ivermectin treatment were predominantly Cylicocyclus (Cyc.) insigne. The ITS-2 rDNA metabarcoding was in good agreement with morphological species estimates but suggested differential activity between moxidectin and ivermectin for several species. This study was a comprehensive investigation of current ML efficacy patterns and provided important insight into potential mechanisms behind shortened ERPs.