Citation: Gómez-Muñoz, M.T.; Gómez-Molinero, M.Á.; González, F.; Azami-Conesa, I.; Bailén, M.; García Piqueras, M.; Sansano-Maestre, J. Avian Oropharyngeal Trichomonosis: Treatment, Failures and Alternatives, a Systematic Review. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/microorganisms10112297 Academic Editor: Renato Fani Received: 17 October 2022 Accepted: 16 November 2022 Published: 19 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). microorganisms Article Avian Oropharyngeal Trichomonosis: Treatment, Failures and Alternatives, a Systematic Review María Teresa Gómez-Muñoz 1,* , Miguel Ángel Gómez-Molinero 1, Fernando González 2,3, Iris Azami-Conesa 1, María Bailén 4 , Marina García Piqueras 5,6 and Jose Sansano-Maestre 6 1 Department of Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University Complutense of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain 2 Grupo de Rehabilitación de la Fauna Autóctona y su Hábitat (GREFA), Monte del Pilar s/n, 28220 Majadahonda, Spain 3 Departmental Section of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University Complutense of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain 4 Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health and Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, 28029 Madrid, Spain 5 Escuela de Doctorado, Catholic University of Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain 6 Department of Animal Health and Public Health, Catholic University of Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain * Correspondence: mariateg@ucm.es Abstract: Oropharyngeal avian trichomonosis is a potentially lethal parasitic disease that affects several avian orders. This review is focused on the disease treatments since prophylactic treatment is prohibited in most countries and resistant strains are circulating. A systematic review following the PRISMA procedure was conducted and included 60 articles. Successful and non-toxic treatments of avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis started with enheptin, a drug replaced by dimetridazole, metron- idazole, ornidazole, carnidazole and ronidazole. Administration in drinking water was the most employed and recommended method, although hierarchy of the avian flocks and palatability of the medicated water can interfere with the treatments. Besides pigeons, treatments with nitroimidazoles were reported in budgerigars, canaries, finches, bald eagles, a cinereous vulture and several falcon species, but resistant strains were reported mainly in domestic pigeons and budgerigars. Novel treatments include new delivery systems proved with traditional drugs and some plant extracts and its main components. Ethanolic extracts from ginger, curry leaf tree and Dennettia tripetala, alkaloid extracts of Peganum harmala and essential oils of Pelargonium roseum and some Lamiaceae were highly active. Pure active compounds from the above extracts displayed good anti-trichomonal activity, although most studies lack a cytotoxicity or in vivo test. Keywords: Trichomonas gallinae; treatment; resistance to treatment; avian trichomonosis; natural products; new drugs; delivery systems 1. Introduction Oropharyngeal avian trichomonosis is a potentially lethal disease that can affect many bird species, although the most commonly affected are pigeons and raptors [1,2]. Yellow or white caseous lesions at the oropharynx are the commonest signs of the dis- ease, although internal organs, ocular or nasal implications can be found [3]. Canaries (Serinus canaria domestica), budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and finches may appear vomiting, lethargic, or emaciated [4–7]. Commonly, young birds are more heavily affected by the disease [6,8,9]. Nitroimidazole drugs are the most effective and commonly used since the 1950s, when they were first tested against the parasite; however, since 1990, resistant strains appeared in frequently treated flocks or aviaries. Prophylactic treatments are prohibited in many countries and no vaccines are available. For that reason, new treatments are necessary. This Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112297 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112297 https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112297 https://creativecommons.org/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms https://www.mdpi.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-845X https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5201-906X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6882-3797 https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10112297 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10112297?type=check_update&version=2 Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 2 of 17 review focuses on the most frequently employed treatment for the disease, the appearance of resistances to nitroimidazoles and the examination on data of potentially new treatments or delivery systems. 2. Materials and Methods The present systematic review was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [10]. The objective of the present review is to describe and analyze the treatments employed against oropha- ryngeal trichomonosis. Within this framework, specific objectives are: first, to review the employed treatments to prevent and treat avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis; second, to review the reported resistance to the standard treatments; and third, to review new options for treatments, including those from natural products, or new formulations of previously employed drugs. 2.1. Databases and Strategy of Search For this review three databases were employed: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Web of Science. Three searches were performed to include the highest number of articles, with the following terms and Boolean connectors: (1) “Trichomonas gallinae” AND “Treatment”, (2) “Trichomonas gallinae” AND (“Metronidazole” OR “Nitroimidazole” OR “Carnidazole” OR “Dimetridazole” OR “Ronidazole” OR “Ornidazole” OR “Tinidazole”) AND (“Re- sistance” OR “Sensitivity”), and (3) “Trichomonas gallinae” AND (“Natural products” OR “Essential oils” OR “Natural compounds” OR “Plant products” OR “Plant extracts”). Ar- ticles with no restriction for the date of publishing were included. Additionally, a search within the cited references in each article was performed and related references included. The final search was carried out on 8 October 2022. Duplicates were removed from the list before adding references to Mendeley. The abstract of each article was manually reviewed and agreement about the inclusion of the articles in the systematic review was achieved by all the authors. 2.2. Reasons for Exclusion The following criteria for exclusion were applied to the identified records: articles dealing with other trichomonads (not from the avian oropharynx) or other parasites, review articles, meeting abstracts, patents, potentially toxic products, studies using other techniques, articles that do not meet the appropriate scientific criteria (i.e., doses not specified, methods not sufficiently explained, results not addressed properly), books and book chapters. No automated tools for analysis were employed, since the number of retrieved articles was not very extensive. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Search Result The search identified a total of 233 records, 43 from PubMed, 77 from Scopus and 113 from the Web of Science. After removal of duplicates, a total of 114 articles were manually examined, exclusion criteria applied, the references lists were manually checked and new records were included. A total of 60 articles were finally analyzed and discussed in the present review (Figure 1) (Supplementary Tables S1–S5). Metadata statistical analysis was not carried out due to the diversity of methods employed by the different authors, but results from different studies are compared and conclusions obtained in each part of the manuscript. 3.2. Treatments against T. gallinae Treatment of avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis has improved since the first attempts made during the 1940s and 1950s. The employment of copper sulfate, hydrochloric acid, Lugol’s solution or mercuric chloride were tested on naturally infected pigeons with anti- trichomonal (AT) effect, but prolonged doses, poor palatability, or adverse effects were Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 3 of 17 noticed in most cases [11,12] and they were soon dismissed. Other substances with slight or null AT effect tested in vitro or in natural or experimental infections were: 1. furazolidone, only efficient at high doses with toxic effects [13], 2. penicillin and streptomycin [12], 3. auremycin, nitrophenide and sulfamides [14], 4. Osmaron B [8], and 5. nihydrazone [15]. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 3 of 19 Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart employed for the systematic review of avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis treatments, failures and alternatives. The search of records was performed in Pub- Med, Scopus and Web of Science employing the terms and criteria conditions previously described. 3.2. Treatments against T. gallinae Treatment of avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis has improved since the first at- tempts made during the 1940s and 1950s. The employment of copper sulfate, hydrochloric acid, Lugol’s solution or mercuric chloride were tested on naturally infected pigeons with anti-trichomonal (AT) effect, but prolonged doses, poor palatability, or adverse effects were noticed in most cases [11,12] and they were soon dismissed. Other substances with slight or null AT effect tested in vitro or in natural or experimental infections were: 1. furazolidone, only efficient at high doses with toxic effects [13], 2. penicillin and strepto- mycin [12], 3. auremycin, nitrophenide and sulfamides [14], 4. Osmaron B [8], and 5. ni- hydrazone [15]. Several drugs have been tested with success and low toxicity in the therapy of avian trichomonosis and most of them are still employed when clinical cases appear. The ma- jority of the studies were performed by employing naturally or experimentally infected domestic pigeons (Columba livia) (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1). Nitrothiazoles were introduced in the decade of 1950 to treat trichomonads and other protozoal infections, starting with enheptin (also known as ANT or 2-amino-5-nitrothiazole) [14], and later with similar molecules or derivates. Enheptin was first tested under several conditions, including several doses, in naturally and experimentally infected pigeons, and with asymptomatic and symptomatic birds [14]. High efficacy was achieved with doses from 18 to 45 mg/kg/day administered for seven days, with lower doses being less effective and higher doses being toxic. The drug was also proved efficient at 0.125% (equivalent to 20 mg/bird/day) in aqueous solution for 6 days, both in natural and experimental infections, Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart employed for the systematic review of avian oropharyngeal trichomono- sis treatments, failures and alternatives. The search of records was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science employing the terms and criteria conditions previously described. Several drugs have been tested with success and low toxicity in the therapy of avian trichomonosis and most of them are still employed when clinical cases appear. The majority of the studies were performed by employing naturally or experimentally infected domestic pigeons (Columba livia) (Table 1, Supplementary Table S1). Nitrothiazoles were introduced in the decade of 1950 to treat trichomonads and other protozoal infections, starting with enheptin (also known as ANT or 2-amino-5-nitrothiazole) [14], and later with similar molecules or derivates. Enheptin was first tested under several conditions, including several doses, in naturally and experimentally infected pigeons, and with asymptomatic and symptomatic birds [14]. High efficacy was achieved with doses from 18 to 45 mg/kg/day administered for seven days, with lower doses being less effective and higher doses being toxic. The drug was also proved efficient at 0.125% (equivalent to 20 mg/bird/day) in aqueous solution for 6 days, both in natural and experimental infections, although some old pigeons appeared refractory to the treatment [8]. In an experimental procedure employing the highly pathogenic Jones´ Barn strain, a dose of 30 mg/bird/day for 14 days was necessary to reach 100% AT efficacy, and at this time, differences in drug sensitivity were observed between studies and apparently depending on the strains infecting the birds or the chronicity of the infection [16]. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 4 of 17 Metronidazole and dimetridazole were introduced in the 1960s and comparisons with enheptin were made, both in pill format and within drinking water, the latter being the recommended administration system by the authors [17]. Both drugs were effective at the dose of 50 mg/kg (approximately 15 mg/bird/day) for five days in chronically infected pigeons, or at 0.05% in drinking water administered for 3–5 days to naturally or experimentally infected pigeons [15,18], although temporary ataxia was observed in 12% of the birds if dimetridazole was administered for 6 days [15]. More trials were performed with dimetridazole, one of them administered between 5–10 mg/bird/twice daily for 3 days, with good results and no toxicity reported in experimentally infected pigeons [19], while another reported no efficacy if administered for 1 day (25 mg/day oral) but high and perdurable efficacy (up to 1 month) when administering the same dose for five days [20]. Finally, the combination of metronidazole (40–60 mg/day, 5–6 days) with oxytetracycline was effective in not severely affected pigeons [21]. It seems that the infection does not interfere with the pharmacokinetics of metronidazole [22]. In summary, five days is the recommended administration schedule to achieve 100% efficacy and perdurable results, with doses varying from 15 to 60 mg/bird/day. Ornidazole was evaluated in the 1980s in infected pigeons, and under several formats of administration [23]. Doses of 2.5–5 mg/bird for 3 days dissolved in water were effective for at least seven days after treatment while lower doses were not. If administered in solid state, doses from 10 to 40 mg/bird/day for 3 days showed optimum AT effect for at least 17 days, the highest dose being the one recommended by the authors. Carnidazole is usually administered in one dose (10 mg/kg) and displayed lower efficacy when compared with metronidazole at the same dose in naturally infected pigeons (87.5% vs. 100%) [24]. When employed in a clinical situation, 10 mg/bird was enough to avoid clinical manifestations in adult pigeons; however, 60% of the squabs died of trichomonosis at 5 mg/bird [25]. The authors argued that early diagnosis was lacking in this case and was critical for treatment success. Nifursol 50% has been evaluated against experimental infections with T. gallinae. Doses of 600–1200 mg/kg of food were enough to achieve results comparable with the administration of metronidazole in drinking water [26]. Table 1. Treatment employed against avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis in domestic pigeons (Columba livia). Products, doses and success rates are indicated, as well as side effects. Only effective drugs (efficacy higher than 80%) are included in the table. Product Dose Success Rate Side Effects Clinical Signs Type of Infection Reference Enheptine 18–45 mg/kg/d, 7 d 100% No No Natural [14] No (83.3% mortality at 90–280 mg/kg/d) Yes (controls died) Experimental Enheptine 150 mg/bird 80–100% (lower efficacy in old birds) No (at 500 mg/bird vomit and absence of mourning) No Natural [8] 0.125% DW, 6 d 86.7–100% (lower efficacy in old birds) No No Most natural and some experimental Enheptine 10–30 mg/bird/d, 7 d (DW) 77.8–92.9% No Yes (controls died) Experimental [16] 30 mg/bird/d, 14 d (DW) 100% No Yes (controls died) Enheptine 100 mg/bird 70–100% No No Natural (in cages or flocks) [17] 0.1 % DW 100% No No Metronidazole 25 mg/bird 70–100% No No 0.1% in DW 100% No No Dimetridazole 24 mg/bird 80–100% No No 0.125% in DW * (product at 40%) 100% No No Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 5 of 17 Table 1. Cont. Product Dose Success Rate Side Effects Clinical Signs Type of Infection Reference Metronidazole 50 mg/kg, 5 d 100% No No Natural and Experimental [15] Dimetridazole 50 mg/kg, 5 d 100% No No 0.05% DW, 3–6 d 100% Ataxia for 24 h at 6 days (11.7%) No Dimetridazole 50 mg/kg, 5 d or 0.05% DW, 5 d Effective No Weight loss, oropharyngeal lesions Natural [18] Metronidazole 50 mg/kg, 5 d Effective No Ornidazole 2.5–5 mg/bird 3 d DW Effective No No Natural [23] Solid: 10–40 * mg/kg, 3 d Effective (lower doses not effective) No No Dimetridazole 200–400 * mg/L, 25 mL, 3 d Effective at day 3 No No Experimental [19] Dimetridazole 25 mg/bird/d, 5 d 100% (not effective 1 dose) No No Natural [20] Dimetridazole 10 mg/kg 100% No No Natural [24] Carnidazole 10 mg/kg 87.5% Nifursol 50% 600–1200 mg/kg food Effective No No Natural [26] Carnidazole 10 mg/adult, 5 mg/squab 100% adults, 40% squabs No Apathy, anorexia, diarrhea, 60% mortality squabs Natural [25] Metronidazole and oxytetracycline 40–60 mg/kg, 6 d 80% No Listless, oropharyngeal lesions, two deaths Natural [21] Metronidazole 25 mg/kg, 5 d or 25 mg/kg iv effective No No Experimental [22] *: recommended treatment by the authors. d: days. DW: drinking water. Besides domestic pigeons, other birds, wild or domestic, have been treated against naturally acquired oropharyngeal avian trichomonosis, with clinical manifestations, em- ploying in most cases metronidazole or dimetridazole (Table 2). Several cases of wild birds are described in the literature. Debilitated bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) with oropharyngeal lesions were successfully treated with dimetridazole at doses of 50 mg/kg or total doses of 375–500 mg/bird, and in all cases, 1 day of treatment was not enough to eliminate the infection, and the authors needed at least two or three doses separated by 1–8 days, depending on the situation, to eliminate the trichomonads [27,28]. Besides, one asymptomatic bald eagle was treated with 50 mg/kg/12 h of metronidazole for five days to eliminate the infection [29]. Additionally, a debilitated cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) with mild oral lesions was treated with metronidazole (50 mg/kg, five days), although the treatment needed to be repeated to eliminate the infection [30]. In these two last cases, Trichomonas gypaetinii, another oropharyngeal trichomonad, was the etiological agent. Metronidazole has been used to treat clinical cases of trichomono- sis (lesions in orpharynx, sinuses and internal organs) in several species of falcons at 50 mg/kg/day for 5–7 days, although injectable dimetridazole (5%, 0.25 mL) was em- ployed to treat infraorbital sinuses [3]. During an outbreak of oral trichomonosis in wood pigeons (Columba palumbus), the administration of dimetridazole at 200 ppm in the food of game bird feeders ended the mortality events [31]. Domestic animals other than pigeons have been treated with both drugs. Clini- cally affected budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) have been treated with dimetrida- zole (0.05 mg/g bird for seven days) in drinking water [4] or metronidazole (30 mg/kg, ten days) [7]. Metronidazole was partially effective when administered at 200 mg/L of drinking water for five days to canaries with clinical signs of oral trichomonosis, and completely eliminated the infection at 200 mg/kg for five days [6]. Turkeys with clinical signs of trichomonosis and raised together with pigeons and hens also recovered from the disease with metronidazole in drinking water for seven to ten days [32]. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 6 of 17 Carnidazole has been less widely employed to treat avian oropharyngeal trichomono- sis in birds other than pigeons (Table 2). House finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) were treated at 20 mg/kg/day for five days [5] with some debilitated birds dying of trichomonosis. Severely affected sparrowhawk chicks were treated employing carnidazole, but only 2/5 recovered from the infection [9]. Carnidazole was also tried at several doses in naturally infected pink pigeons (Nesoenas mayeri) [33]. The employment of 10 mg/bird in one dose or 5–10 mg/ bird every 2–4 days until clinical signs ceased seemed effective in short term, although the infection eventually returns. Ronidazole and dimetridazole were also tested in drinking water, but variable attendance at drinking station was observed by the authors, probably not reaching the appropriate dose [33]. It seems that the low palatability of some drugs, the hierarchy of pigeons, the problems to dissolve some drugs, or the time of the year could interfere with the efficacy of the treatments, and these facts should be considered when establishing a treatment protocol [8,33]. Severely affected young birds are more prone to die of trichomonosis even if treated at the appropriate dose, and this fact has been observed in squabs [25], but also in canaries [6] and raptor chicks [9]. Highly debilitated birds of other species, such as budgerigars [4], pigeons [21], or house finches [5] also died in spite of treatment administration. Prompt treatment seems to be crucial for the success of the therapy. Table 2. Treatment employed against avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis in birds other than domestic pigeons. Products, doses and successful rates are indicated. Only effective drugs (efficacy higher than 80%) are included in the table. Product Dose Successful Species Clinical Signs Reference Dimetridazole 47 mg/kg (2 d in 1 week) Yes Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Debilitated, oropharyngeal lesions [27] Dimetridazole 250–500 mg/d (3 d in 1 week) Yes Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Debilitated, oropharyngeal lesions [28] Metronidazole 50 mg/kg/12 h, 5 d Yes Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) No [29] Metronidazole 50 mg/kg, 5 d (repeated) Yes Cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) Mild lesion at oropharynx [30] Metronidazole 50 mg/kg 5–7 d (+dimetridazole 5% injectable in infraorbital sinuses) Yes Falcons (several species) Oral, nasal lesions, some with organs and infraorbital sinuses affected [3] Carnidazole Partially Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) 4/5 chicks with severe oropharyngeal lesions [9] Dimetridazole 0.05 mg/g bird DW, 7 d Yes (emaciated birds died) Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) Vomit, emaciation [4] Metronidazole 30 mg/kg, 10 d 40% (40% dead) Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) Vomit, emaciation, oral lesions [7] Metronidazole 200 mg/L DW, 5 d or 20 mg/Kg/d, 5 d effective Canaries (Serinus canaria) Lethargy, vomit, emaciation, death [6] Carnidazole 20–30 mg/kg, 5 d Partially House finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) Emaciation, ocular and nasal discharge, emaciation [5] Dimetridazole 200 ppm in food 10 d Effective Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) Oropharyngeal lesions, organs affected [31] Carnidazole 5–10 mg/bird, various doses Effective in short term Pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri) Wight loss, emaciation, oropharyngeal lesions [33] Ronidazole/Dimetridazole DW Variable attendance d: days; h: hours. DW: drinking water. 3.3. Resistance of T. gallinae to Nitroimidazoles Nitroimidazole drugs are the treatment of choice against avian oropharyngeal tri- chomonosis. However, failures in the success of treatments in birds infected by T. gallinae were first reported in 1990 [34]. Since then, nine studies had been conducted specifically to demonstrate the existence of resistant strains to these compounds (Supplementary Table S2). Experiments had been carried out using metronidazole, dimetridazole, ronidazole, carnida- zole, ornidazole and tinidazole. These studies showed that there are resistant strains of Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 7 of 17 T. gallinae to all the nitroimidazole drugs used in birds [22,34–41]. However, there are not studies directed to elucidate the mechanisms by which T. gallinae acquires resistance to nitroimidazole drugs. It has been assumed that the molecular mechanisms of resistance could be similar to T. vaginalis, since they are closely related. Some authors suggested that direct contact between the ingested drug and trophozoites within the lumen of the oral cavity or crop is required for complete protozoocidal activity [36]. Nitroimidazoles are frequently administered in drinking water, passing directly to the proventriculus in absence of crop content. The administration of these drugs with food would enhance the contact of the drug with the parasite, since food reduces the time to empty the crop, improving the response to the treatment [36]. 3.3.1. In Vivo Resistance The first report on T. gallinae resistance to nitroimidazoles appeared after noticing treatment failures in clinically ill infected birds. The authors unsuccessfully tried four consecutive treatments in five pigeons from a flock refractory to previous treatments. The sequential administration of dimetridazole, ronidazole, carnidazole and metronidazole did not eliminate the parasite from the animals, and the authors suspected acquired resistance [34]. Between 2.5 and 5 times the recommended dosage (40 mg/L drinking water) of ronida- zole were evaluated in pigeons carrying drug-resistant T. gallinae strains. The resistance of the strains was previously tested in in vitro experiences. Only the highest dosages (200 mg/L) eliminated the infection in the animals [35]. Carnidazole and dimetridazole resistance were assessed in a flock frequently treated by the owner with these drugs [38]. The efficacy of the treatment was very low with both molecules, since only 19% of the animals treated with carnidazole and none of the treated with dimetridazole eliminated the infection. 3.3.2. In Vitro Resistance Several studies demonstrated the existence of resistant strains of T. gallinae obtained from different hosts, under laboratory conditions. The parasites were exposed to dif- ferent concentrations of drugs in order to obtain the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), also named as minimum lethal concentration (MLC) or the French expression “Concentration Minimale Trichomonacide” (CMT) [37], but results vary according to the methodology employed (parasite growth and inverted microscopy), although the absence of motility observed by inverted microscopy is the most advisable technique [38] (Table 3, Supplementary Table S3). Table 3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) in µg/mL of different nitroimidazole drugs evaluated against trichomonads isolated from avian oropharynx. The name of the strains and the host of which isolates were obtained are included. Strain Host MIC (µg/mL) Ref. Dimetridazole Ronidazole Carnidazole Ornidazole Tinidazole Metronidazole Not named (n = 6) Budgerigar 30–50 40–60 – – – 40–50 [36] HF26 Bonelli’s eagle 7.8 1.9 7.8 5.8 – 7.8 [38]79P Rural pigeon 7.8 1.4 3.9 2.9 – 5.8 P2 Urban Pigeon 3.9 1.9 3.9 3.9 – 7.8 1FG Racing pigeon 187.5 31.2 93.7 125 – 500 Not named (n = 31) Pigeon – 80 – – – [37] 5895-C1/06 Budgerigar 2.5 ± 0.3 6.7 ± 1.7 – 6.7 ± 1.7 – 2 ± 0.3 [39] 15935-C3/06 Budgerigar 3.0 ± 0.7 2.7 ± 0.3 – 2.0 ± 0.6 – 2.7 ± 0.3 231-C1/07 Racing pigeon 5.0 ± 0.0 5.0 ± 0.0 – 16.7 ± 1.7 – 8.8 ± 1.3 Austria/ 231-C3/07 Racing pigeon 33.3 ± 3.3 65.0 ± 2.9 – 76.7 ± 3.3 – 28.3 ± 1.7 7895-C2/06 Racing pigeon 36.7 ± 3.3 61.7 ± 1.7 – 73.3 ± 6.7 – 25.0 ± 2.9 8855-C6/06 Racing pigeon 83.3 ± 6.7 83.3 ± 6.7 – 103.3 ± 3.3 – 103.3 ± 3.3 Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 8 of 17 Table 3. Cont. Strain Host MIC (µg/mL) Ref. Dimetridazole Ronidazole Carnidazole Ornidazole Tinidazole Metronidazole Not named Pigeon – – – – – 50 (24 h); 25 (48 h); 12.5 (72 h) [40] Not named (n = 15) Wild pigeon 0.98–125 0.98–500 1.95–250 – 0.98–62.5 0.98–125 [41] *Not named (n = 16) Racing pigeon 1.95500 1.95–500 3.9–500 – 1.95–250 1.95 >500 Not named (n = 5) Pigeon – – – – – 50 (12 h); 25 (24 h); 6.25 (36 h); 1.5 (48 h) [22] * Authors determined a threshold of 15.6 µg/mL to discriminate resistance for all the drugs evaluated. –: Not tested. Ref.: reference. In a different experiment, isolates obtained from racing pigeons were employed to evaluate the effectiveness of metronidazole, dimetridazole, ronidazole and carnidazole, and the authors encountered resistance to one or more drugs in six out of eight isolates [35]. The pattern of resistance was variable among isolates but no resistance to dimetridazole was reported in any of the isolates investigated. In addition, ronidazole was selected as the drug more suitable for treatments in vivo since it showed the lowest levels of resistance. Ronidazole was also evaluated for drug resistance in 31 isolates of T. gallinae from pigeons [37]. A MIC value of 80 µg/mL was established as resistance threshold for the authors. However, they observed that 45% of the isolates had a MIC value of 40 µg/mL, a little below the threshold was considered as an indicator of resistance in vivo. The authors found a relationship between the frequency of treatments and the decrease in the susceptibility of the strains to ronidazole. Ronidazole was again the drug with higher efficacy against the parasite in the ex- periments conducted by Munoz et al. [38]. After studying resistance of four isolates of T. gallinae recovered from different birds (wild and domestic) against metronidazole, dimetridazole, ronidazole, carnidazole and ornidazole determined that the MLC varied between 1.7–7.1 µg/mL, except for an isolate from a racing pigeon which required concen- trations at least eight times higher for all the drugs used. McKeon et al. (1997) [36] studied the MIC of ronidazole, metronidazole and dimetri- dazole in six isolates obtained from budgerigars and a Senegal dove (Spilopelia senegalensis). In their experiments, the authors tried to emulate the time that the parasite is in contact with the drug in the crop, by limiting the time that parasites were in medicated medium. They obtained MIC values similar for the three drugs, ranged from 40 to 70.5 µg/mL for metronidazole, 30 to 50 µg/mL for dimetridazole and 40 to 60 µg/mL for ronidazole. How- ever, the MIC of the isolate obtained from the dove was higher than the MIC of the isolates obtained from budgerigars, being 96, 80 and 92 µg/mL for metronidazole, dimetridazole and ronidazole, respectively. Variations in resistance patterns has been observed not only between strains but also between clones obtained from the same sample [39]. The authors obtained two strains genet- ically different from the same bird (a racing pigeon), which displayed significantly different drug sensitivities. In addition, genetic relationships between resistance phenotype and ITS/5.8S/ITS sequence was detected. This association was observed by Rouffaer et al. [41] comparing isolates obtained from wild and racing pigeons. In both studies, resistant strains were more frequently associated with genotype A of this sequence (equivalent to genotype C of other authors [42]), which has been found at higher prevalence in pigeons [43]. Results observed by different authors show relationships between nitroimidazole resistant strains, hosts and genetic diversity of T. gallinae. Pigeons, mainly racing pigeons, seem to be an important source of resistance strains [38,39,41]. The reasons can be diverse, but continuous preventive treatments with underdosed treatments, as occurs frequently in drink water dosages, could partially explain these questions. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 9 of 17 3.4. Alternatives to the Traditional Treatment of Oropharyngeal Avian Trichomonosis 3.4.1. Old Drugs, New Molecules and Novel Delivery Systems There have been limited efforts in the search of new drugs to fight T. gallinae, since only six articles were found exploring the anti-trichomonal (AT) activity with novel drugs or novel delivery systems (Table 4, Supplementary Table S4). Only one of the studies employed a new molecule (chitosan) against T. gallinae [44], while four explored new carriers to load them with metronidazole [45–48], and another one loaded the carrier with rhodanine [49]. Table 4. Novel treatments against T. gallinae, including novel formulations evaluated employing in vitro experiments. %GI: percentage of growth inhibition. IC50 (µg/mL): concentration needed to produce 50% trophozoite mortality. MIC (µg/mL): minimum inhibitory concentration: concentration at which no movement of trophozoites was observed. % GI Carrier + Compound/% GI Carrier Compound Carrier (Loading-Entrapment Efficiency) Concentration 0–1 h 1–2 h 2–3 h 6 h Reference Chitosan - 125 µg/mL >80/- -/- >80/- 96.3/- [44] 250 µg/mL >80/- -/- >80/- >96.3/- 500 µg/mL >80/- -/- >80/- >96.3/- 1250 µg/mL >80/- -/- >80/- 100/- MTZ Chitosan nanocapsule- cellulose nanofibrils- tannic acid composites (64.56%) † 2 mg/mL 30–100/0–55 100/55–75 100/75–85 -/- [45] 1 mg/mL 0–50/0–25 50–100/25–45 100/45–75 -/- 0.5 mg/mL 0–30/0 30–60/0–25 60–100/25–60 -/- MTZ - 50 µg/mL 0 0–15 15–37 -/- MTZ Nanowhiskers 2 mg/mL 0–5/0 5–90/0 90–100/0–5 -/- [46] 1 mg/mL 0/0 0–60/0 60–100/0 -/- 0.5 mg/mL 0/0 0–50/0 50–100/0 -/- MTZ - 50 µg/mL 0 0–15 15–37 -/- MTZ Zeolite Y nanoparticles with tannic acid (69.9%) 2 mg/mL 0/0 0–72/0 72–100/0 -/- [47] 1 mg/mL 0/0 0–25/0 25–100/0 -/- 0.5 mg/mL 0/0 0–15/0 15–85/0 -/- MTZ - 50 µg/mL 0 0 0–37 /7 -/- Poly(rhodanine) Zinc oxide 10 mg/mL 0–65/0–100 65–100/100 100/100 -/- [49] 5 mg/mL 0–40/0–85 40–70/85–100 70–100/100 -/- 2.5 mg/mL 0–30/0–75 30–50/75–100 50–100/100 -/- MTZ - 50 µg/mL 0 0–15 15–37 -/- IC50/MIC 12 h IC50/MIC 24 h IC50/MIC 48 h Cytotoxicity (fibroblast) MTZ Nanolactoferrin (55%) -/100 0.995/12.5 -/1.5 No [48] * MTZ - -/50 0.936/25 -/1.5 No * Also in vivo experiments, with no hepatotoxic effects. MTZ: metronidazole. †: possibly cytotoxic. -: not tested. All the articles performed in vitro experiments and metronidazole was used as a reference compound. Most authors determined the AT activity within 1–6 h, while only one article evaluated the AT activity at 12, 24 and 48 h post addition of the compound [48]. Most of the articles employed the percent of growth inhibition by counting trophozoites, while one article employed the percent of mortality [44] and another employed the IC50 (50% lethal dose, dose) value to evaluate the AT activity [48]. None of them assessed cytotoxicity, except Tabari et al. [48], who did not find significant cytotoxic activity. The authors also employed in vivo experiments, proving the absence of hepatotoxicity, as well as high efficacy in eliminating trophozoites in experimentally infected pigeons at days 2 and 3 of treatment with metronidazole and nanolactoferrin-metronidazole at 50 mg/Kg for 5 days. Chitosan is the only molecule evaluated as a new anti-T. gallinae compound. It is a molecule derived from chitin, a natural carbohydrate polymer mainly found in the skeleton of arthropods and cell walls of fungi, and has been suggested as antimicrobial, antifungal and antioxidant [44]. The authors employed concentrations ranging from 125 to 1250 µg/mL and found percentages of mortality higher than 80% after 1 h of exposure and from 96.3% to 100% after 6 h. This molecule was later employed, together with Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 10 of 17 other compounds (cellulose nanofibrils and tannic acid), as part of a pharmacological vehicle (named nanocarriers) loaded with metronidazole [45]. They found the carrier also active against T. gallinae, but with 30–50% lower AT values. The authors suggest a possible cytotoxic effect of the carrier, although no experiments were conducted to evaluate this point. Other drug delivery systems employed to deliver AT drugs were whisker-like SBA- 15 nanocrystals (nanowhiskers) [46], Zeolite Y nanoparticles with tannic acid [47], zinc oxide [49] and nanolactoferrin [48]. Zinc oxide nanoparticles displayed higher AT activity than the coated nano particles with the drug [49]. None of the remaining delivery systems, except lactoferrin which was not tested alone, displayed significant AT activity. When evaluated at early times of the experiments, all of them reached 100% of growth inhibition at 3 h, although poly(rhodanine) coated with zinc oxide was faster in reaching this percentage of growth inhibition; however, this might be due to the zinc oxide, as we have mentioned before [49] (Table 4). However, higher doses and a different compound were used in this study and no direct comparison can be made with the rest. All the experiments employing novel drug delivery systems showed good and fast AT activity (high mortality rate, high GI%) with the vehicles and concentrations employed when compared with metronidazole control (50 µg/mL), although the concentrations used for the carriers (mostly 2, 1 and 0.5 mg/mL) were, in general, much higher than the employed for metronidazole (Table 4), with the exception of nanolactoferrin, in which the same dose was applied for the delivery system and for metronidazole, and similar results were obtained with the drug alone or in combination with the carrier by the authors [48]. 3.4.2. Natural Products from Plants An increasing interest is arising in natural products, among them those isolated from plants, since they are associated with the amelioration of life expectancy and life quality due to their composition, especially antioxidant molecules [50]. Besides this effect, many of them have been proven as anti-cancer, antibacterial, antifungal and anti-parasitic, including protozoa, helminths and arthropods [40]. In this section, we expose all the studies testing natural products and derivates as anti-T. gallinae. Seventeen articles were found after the systematic review dealing with plant extracts or derived products. Of them, six employed methanolic extracts [50–55], five tested es- sential oils (EOs) [56–60], two are based on ethanolic extract [61,62], one tested alkaloid extracts [63], one tested an aqueous extract [40], and another one tested a dichloromethane extract [50] against T. gallinae (Table 5). Two of the studies evaluated only pure com- pounds or derivates [64,65], while three of the articles testing extracts also employed pure compounds as anti-T. gallinae [50,52,60] (Table 5, Supplementary Table S5). Table 5. Plant extracts employed as anti-T. gallinae in vivo. Plant (Extract, Part of The Plant) IC50/MIC 24 h IC50/MIC 24 h MTZ ATS Cytotoxicity (IC50)/Test Major Components (>5%, Ordered from Higher to Lower) Ref. Murraya koenigii (ME, leaf) 34/- 0–1/ - H M: 61.5 Yes (mahanimbine, girinimbine, isomahanimbine, murrayazoline, murrayazolidine, mahanine, % not shown) [51] Murraya koenigii (ME, stem) 25/- 0–1/ - H H: 14.5 /Brine shrimp lethality test Yes (mahanimbine, mahanimbilol, girinimbine, murrayanine, murrayacine, murrayaquinone-A, % not shown) Murraya koenigii (ME, seed) 1.9/- 1.9/- H L: 750 No [52] Murraya koenigii (ME, pericarp) 2/- 1.9/- H L: 1500 /Hemagglutination Test Dennettia tripetala (EO, leaf) 0.13% v/v/- 1.02% v/v/- H N.t. Yes (2-phenylnitroethane, linalool) [56] Harungana madagascariensis (EE, stem bark) * 187/- 1.87/- M N.t. No [62] Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 11 of 17 Table 5. Cont. Plant (Extract, Part of The Plant) IC50/MIC 24 h IC50/MIC 24 h MTZ ATS Cytotoxicity (IC50)/Test Major Components (>5%, Ordered from Higher to Lower) Ref. Clausena lansium (DME) * 19/- 1.9/- H N.t. No [50] Clausena lansium (ME, leaf) * 2/- 1.9/- H Eugenia uniflora (ME, leaf) 61.7/- 13.7/- M L: 260 No [53] Eugenia uniflora (several unidentified subfractions) 4.8–70.5/- 13.7/- H-M L. 230–3000 /Hemagglutination Allium sativum (WE) * 75,000 -/50 L N.t. No [40] Quercus persica (ME) 2500 (100% mortality) 1250 (100% mortality) L N.t. No [54] Allium sativum (ME) No effect L Artemisia annua (ME) 5000 L Myrtus communis (ME) 5000 L Rosmarinus officinalis (ME) 5000 L Zataria multiflora (ME) 5000 L Peganum harmala (AE, seed) * -/15 -/50 H N.t. No [63] Artemisia sieberi (EO) * -/10 -/20 H N.t. Yes (α-thujone, β-thujone, camphor, 1,8-cineole, camphene) [57] Pelargonium roseum (EO) * -/20 -/10 H N.t. Yes (β-citronellol, geraniol, linalool) [59] Pulycaria disenterica (ME, aerial) 6250 (100% mortality 6 h) 100 (100% mortality 6 h) L N.t. No [55] Lycopus europaeus (ME, aerial) 28,370 (100% mortality 6 h) L N.t. Np Zingiber officinale (EE) -/25 -/50 H N.t. Yes (α-curumene, α-gigeberene, gingerol, ciclohexane, α-phernesene, cis-6-shagole) [61] Lavandula angustifolia (EE) -/50 H N.t. Yes (linalool, borneol, α-pinene, 1,8-cineol, ocimene, linalyl acetate) Cymbopogon flexuosus (EO) * 220/528 N.t. Only one dose (880 µg/mL) L N.t. Yes (β-geranial, z-citral, geraniol) [58] Cymbopogon flexuosus (nanoemulsion EO) * 110/418 M N.t. only the best result for each plant is shown N.t. [60] Santolina chamaecyparissus (EO, aerial) 394.3/- 1 L No Dittrichia graveolens (EO, aerial) 259.7/- L No Lavandula lanata (EO, aerial) 731.7/- L No Lavandula luisieri 1 (EO, aerial) 189.8/- M Yes (camphor, trans-α-necrodyl acetate, lavandulyl acetate) Lavandula luisieri 2 (EO, aerial) 103.4/- M Yes (trans-α-necrodyl acetate, lavandulol, germacrene D, unidentified) Lavandula angustifolia (EO, aerial) 600.4/- L No Lavandula x intermedia “Abrial” (EO, aerial) 406.8/- L No Lavandula x intermedia “Super”(EO, aerial) 321.2/- L No Lavandula angustiflia var. maillette (EO, aerial) 373.9/- L No Origanum virens (EO, aerial) 175.4/- M Yes (γ-terpinene, linalool, linalyl acetate) Origanum majorana SD (EO, aerial) 139.8/- M Yes (carvacrol, p-cymene, β-caryophyllene) Origanum majorana HD (EO, aerial) 158.8/- M Yes (4-terpineol, γ-terpinene, α-terpinene, sabinene, p-cymene, ocimene, β-caryophyllene) Rosmarinus officinalis (EO, aerial) 256.6/- L No Satureja montana SD (EO, aerial) 141.4/- M Yes (carvacrol, γ-terpinene, p-cymene, thymol) Mentha suaveolens (EO, aerial) 303/- L No Salvia officinalis SD (EO, aerial) 139.1/- M Yes (β-thujone, 1,8-cineole, β-pinene, β-caryophyllene, viridiflorol, α-humulene) Salvia hibrid (S. officinalis x S. lavandulifolia) SD (EO, aerial) 134.6/- M Yes (β-pinene, 1,8-cineole, β-caryophyllene, camphene, trans-bornyl acetate, camphor, α-pinene) Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 12 of 17 Table 5. Cont. Plant (Extract, Part of The Plant) IC50/MIC 24 h IC50/MIC 24 h MTZ ATS Cytotoxicity (IC50)/Test Major Components (>5%, Ordered from Higher to Lower) Ref. Salvia sclarea HD (EO, aerial) 117.4/- M Yes (linalyl acetate, linalool, α-terpineol, neryl acetate, germacrene D) Thymus vulgaris HD (EO, aerial) 166/- M Yes (thymol, p-cymene, γ-terpinene) Thymus vulgaris SD (EO, aerial) 193.3/- M Yes (p-cymene, thymol, β-caryophyllene) Thymus zygis HD (EO, aerial) 133.1/- M Yes (thymol, p-cymene, γ-terpinene, borneol, linalool, carvacrol) * Extracts evaluated also in vivo. MTZ: Metronidazole as a reference compound. IC50: Inhibitory Concentration 50. MIC: Minimum Inhibitory Concentration. ME: methanolic extract. EE: ethanolic extract. EO: essential oil. AE: alkaloid extract. WE: water aqueous extract. DME: dichloromethane extract. N.t.: not tested. SD: EO extracted by steam distillation. HD: EO extracted by hydrodistillation. Ref: reference. ATS: Anti-trichomonal strength is expressed according to MIC or IC50 values (µg/mL). H: high, IC50 or MIC ≤ 100 µg/mL, M: moderate, IC50 > 100 and ≤400 µg/mL, L: low IC50 > 400 µg/mL. For cytotoxicity (µg/mL) L: low IC50 > 100 µg/mL, M: moderate IC50 > 50 and ≤100 µg/mL, or H: high IC50 ≤ 50 µg/mL. Comparison among the in vitro studies is not an easy task, because of the lack of uniformity in the employed methods. To test the activity or vitality of the trophozoites, the most employed technique is counting in triplicate, while only one article measured the metabolic activity by employing the MTT method adapted to the protozoa [60]. Many of them employed the Inhibitory Concentration 50 (IC50, the dose needed to kill 50% of the trophozoites) to evaluate the activity against the protozoa, while a few used the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC). Most articles determined the in vitro anti-trichomonal activity at 24 h, but some of them tested the products at 24, 48 and 72 h. When examining the anti-T. gallinae effects at different times, the product/compound evaluated is described as trichomonastatic when IC50 values are higher at later times (48 h) and trichomonacidal if IC50 values are higher at earlier times (24 h) [53]. Since 24 h is used by most of the authors, we have employed this reference in Table 5 to show comparable measures. All the studies included in vitro assays employing different doses of the extracts, while eight of them tested the extracts also in vivo [40,50,51,57–59,63,64]. Among the in vivo studies, three investigated the toxicity in rats or mice and found no notable toxic effects [50,51,64], while the others compared the effect of the extract with the administration of metronidazole in experimentally infected birds (pigeons mostly). Scarce or no toxicity of the extracts and comparable effectivity to metronidazole was obtained [40,57–59,63]. The method of extraction most frequently employed was methanol extraction, followed by essential oils extraction, while the other methods were employed only in one or two articles. The most studied plant as anti-T. gallinae was the curry leaf tree (Murraya koenigii), probably due to several experiments made by the same authors [51,52,64]. Other plants were also employed in more than one article, such as lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) [60,61], rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) [54,60] and garlic (Allium sativum) [40,54]. To compare the strength of the anti-trichomonal activity of the extracts, limits has been established in Table 5 as follows: for MIC and IC50: IC50 ≤ 50 µg/mL (High), IC50 > 50 and ≤400 µg/mL (Moderate), IC50 > 400 µg/mL (Low). According to the IC50 dose reported by the authors, the most effective extracts were the ethanolic extracts obtained from ginger (Zingiber officinale) and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) [61], the essential oil from the leaves of Dennettia tripetala [56], the methanolic extracts of the seeds and pericarp from the curry leaf tree (M. koenigii), the alkaloid extracts from the seeds of Peganum harmala [63], the essential oil from Artemisia sieberi [57], and the essential oil of Pelargonium roseum [59]. Satisfactory results were also obtained from methanolic extracts of leaves and stem of M. koenigii [51], methanolic extract from the leaves of Eugenia uniflora [53], and essential oils from Lavandula luisieri and other Lamiaceae [60]. The rest of the extracts needed high doses to produce the desired anti-trichomonal effect (Table 5). Cytotoxicity was not examined in many of the extracts employed, although in some cases it was examined on the pure compounds isolated from the tested extracts [60]. When examined, cytotoxicity was low in most of the assays, although some of them displayed Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 13 of 17 moderate toxicity and caution should be taken in these cases [51] and a selectivity index was applied. This index measures the relative anti-trichomonal activity in comparison with the cytotoxic activity [51,60]. Pure compounds have been evaluated against T. gallinae in five articles and results are shown in Table 6. None of the compounds were tested against T. gallinae in experimental infections in vivo, although imperatorin, phellopterin, 3-phormylcarbazole and chalepin were proven to be safe when tested as anti-diabetic compounds [50], and others, such as carvacrol and thymol, have been used in animals for other reasons (antimicrobial, antioxi- dant, antiparasitic, and others, not shown in this review). Considering the anti-trichomonal strength, compounds present in the methanolic and dichloromethane extracts from the curry leaf tree (M. koenigii) and the fools curry leaf tree (C. lansium) are good alternatives in comparison with metronidazole, although the nitroimidazole offers lower IC50 values in most studies [50,52,64]. Carbazole alkaloids present in M. koenigii, such as girinimbirol, girinimbine, mahanimbine, mahanine, koenimbine, mahanimbirol, murrayanine, showed IC50 lower than 5 µg/mL, and furocoumarins from the same plant, such as isogosferol, indicolatone, isoimperatonin, bergapten, β-sitosterol and imperatorin displayed IC50 val- ues lower to 10 µg/mL. These compounds were also evaluated in cytotoxicity assays, although the detailed IC50 dose for cytotoxicity was not shown. Similar compounds from C. lansium, such as imperatorin, phellopterin, 3-phormylcarbazole and chalepin have been tested in vitro for their effects as anti-diabetics, and no toxic effects were observed [50]. Harmine is an alkaloid present in the alkaloid extract of C. lansium, an extract highly ef- ficient in eliminating the disease in birds. The alkaloid showed anti-trichomonal results similar to metronidazole in vitro (MIC = 30 µg/mL vs. MIC = 50 µg/mL of metronidazole), although the authors suggest that the employed isolate was resistant to the conventional treatment [63]. Finally, a series of compounds present in several Lamiaceae plants have been tested against T. gallinae. Considering the anti-trichomonal strength and the cytotoxicity, the most active against the parasite will be carvacrol (pure compound or nanoemulsion) [65], linalyl acetate, thymol, 4-terpinenol, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and D-fenchone [60]. Other compounds highly active against T. gallinae, such as camphene, β-caryophyllene, α and β-thujones, and α and β-pinenes, displayed moderate cytotoxicity and this fact should be further studied before recommending their use [60]. Table 6. Pure compounds employed as anti-trichomonal in vivo. ATS: Anti-trichomonal strength is expressed according to MIC or IC50 values. Plant Compound IC50 24 h/MIC 24 h IC50 24 h/MIC 24 h MTZ ATS Cytotoxicity (IC50 µg/mL)/Test Ref. Murraya koenigii mahanimbine 2.5 µg/mL/- 0.14 µg/mL/- H L/hemagglutination [64] girinimbine 1.1 µg/mL/- H koenimbine 3.8 µg/mL/- H mahanimbinol 4 µg/mL/- H girinimbinol 1.2 µg/mL/- H mahanine 3.5 µg/mL/- H murrayanine 4.6 µg/mL/- H chemical derivates of the above compounds 0.6–3.9 µg/mL/- H Murraya koenigii bergapten 4 µg/mL/- 1.9/- H L/hemagglutination [52] imperatorin 6 µg/mL/- H isoimperatorin 3.1 µg/mL/- H 5-methoxyimperatorin 15.2 µg/mL/- H heraclenin 11 µg/mL/- H byakangelicol 22 µg/mL/- H isogosferol 2 µg/mL/- H 8-geranylosypsoralen 22 µg/mL/- H indicolatone 2.1 µg/mL/- H β-sitosterol 5.8 µg/mL/- H Clausena lansium imperatorin * 6/- 1.9/- H N.t. (only for diabetes) [50] phellopterin * 15.2/- H 3-phormylcarbazole * 3.6/- H Chalepin * 22.4/- H Peganum harmala harmine -/30 -/50 H N.t. [57] harmaline -/100 M Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 14 of 17 Table 6. Cont. Plant Compound IC50 24 h/MIC 24 h IC50 24 h/MIC 24 h MTZ ATS Cytotoxicity (IC50 µg/mL)/Test Ref. Commercial compounds present in several Lamiaceae plants 1,8-cineole, linalool, carvacrol, α-terpineol, camphor, borneol >100/- 1 L L (>100) [60] thymol 38.4/- H L (>100) linalyl acetate 32.2/- H L (>100) γ-terpinene 43.8/- H L (>100) p-cymene 59.7/- M L (>100) caryophyllene oxide 100/- M L (>100) α-pinene 44.2/- H M (88.9) β-pinene 29.6/- H M (88.2) D-fenchone 61.9/- M L (>100) β-caryophyllene 86.1/- M M (60.8) α and β-thujone 17.3/- H L (>100) 4-terpineol 41.5/- H L (>100) camphene 24/- H M (74.8) Only compound carvacrol 0.39/- 2.17/- H L (toxicity at doses higher than IC50 for T. gallinae) [65] carvacrol (nanoemulsion) 0.27/- H L * Compounds tested in vivo for other purposes (not experimental infections with T. gallinae). MTZ: Metronidazole as a reference compound. IC50: Inhibitory Concentration 50. MIC: Minimum Inhibitory Concentration. N.t.: not tested. Ref: reference. H: high, MIC or: IC50 ≤ 50 µg/mL (High), M: moderate, MIC or IC50 > 50 and ≤100 µg/mL, L: low, MIC or IC50 > 100 µg/mL. For cytotoxicity L: low, IC50 > 100 µg/mL, M: moderate, IC50 > 50 and ≤100 µg/mL, or H: high, IC50 ≤ 50 µg/mL. The strains employed for the assays can influence the obtained results. Most authors obtain MIC or IC50 values for metronidazole lower than 2 µg/mL at 24 h [50–52,60,62,64,65], while others employed strains with MIC or IC50 values higher than 10 µg/mL [53,59], or even higher than 15 µg/mL [40,57,61,63] which are considered resistant strains [41]. 4. Conclusions Several drugs have been evaluated against avian oropharyngeal trichomonosis with suc- cess, such as enheptin, dimetridazole, metronidazole, carnidazole, ronidazole and ornidazole. Dimetridazole and metronidazole are the most employed drugs, probably due to their affordable price. Five days is the most recommended schedule administration, and administration in solid state, or mixed with food or drinking water have been assessed. Some authors recommended that mixing the drugs with food is a better choice, since the crop empties slower, and the flavor of drinking water can be altered and birds refuse to drink. Since several strains resistant to nitroimidazoles are circulating, new efforts to search for alternative treatments or delivery systems are necessary. New treatments are mainly based on natural products, including chitosan or several extracts or essential oils ob- tained from plants, and their major components. Extracts and pure compounds from Murraya koenigii, Dennettia tripetala, Clausena lansium, Peganum harmala, Eugenia uniflora, Artemisia sieberi, Pelargonium roseum, Zingiber officinale, Lavandula angustifolia and other Lamiaceae are the most active against T. gallinae. More cytotoxicity tests and in vivo studies are necessary to further elucidate the utility of the new proposals as alternative treatments for avian trichomonosis. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10112297/s1, Table S1: T. gallinae treatments; Table S2: T. gallinae resistance; Table S3: MLC values (resistance); Table S4: Novel treatment and delivery systems; Table S5: Plant natural products. https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10112297/s1 https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10112297/s1 Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 15 of 17 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.T.G.-M., F.G. and J.S.-M.; methodology, I.A.-C. and M.G.P.; software, I.A.-C.; validation, M.T.G.-M., M.Á.G.-M., I.A.-C., J.S.-M., F.G., M.G.P. and M.B.; formal analysis, M.T.G.-M., M.Á.G.-M., I.A.-C., J.S.-M. and M.G.P.; investigation, I.A.-C., M.G.P. and M.B.; re- sources, M.T.G.-M.; data curation, M.T.G.-M., M.Á.G.-M., I.A.-C., J.S.-M. and M.G.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.G.-M., M.Á.G.-M. and J.S.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.T.G.-M., M.Á.G.-M., I.A.-C., J.S.-M., F.G., M.G.P. and M.B.; visualization, M.T.G.-M., F.G. and J.S.-M.; supervi- sion, M.T.G.-M., F.G. and J.S.-M.; project administration, M.T.G.-M.; funding acquisition, M.T.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, grant number PID2020-114207RB-I00 and Banco Santander-UCM, grant number PR108/20-08. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Amin, A.; Bilic, I.; Liebhart, D.; Hess, M. Trichomonads in Birds–A Review. Parasitology 2014, 141, 733–747. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Martínez-Herrero, M.C.; Sansano-Maestre, J.; López Márquez, I.; Obón, E.; Ponce, C.; González, J.; Garijo-Toledo, M.M.; Gómez- Muñoz, M.T. Genetic Characterization of Oropharyngeal Trichomonad Isolates from Wild Birds Indicates That Genotype Is Associated with Host Species, Diet and Presence of Pathognomonic Lesions. Avian Pathol. 2014, 43, 535–546. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Samour, J.H.; Bailey, T.A.; Cooper, J.E. Trichomoniasis in Birds of Prey (Order Falconiformes) in Bahrain. Vet. Rec. 1995, 136, 358–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Baker, J.R. Trichomoniasis, a Major Cause of Vomiting in Budgerigars. Vet. Rec. 1986, 19, 447–449. [CrossRef] 5. Anderson, N.L.; Johnson, C.K.; Fender, S.; Heckly, S.; Metzler, M.; Nave, P.; Yim, J. Clinical Signs and Histopathologic Findings As- sociated with a Newly Recognized Protozoal Disease (Trichomonas gallinae) in Free-Ranging House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2010, 41, 249–254. [CrossRef] 6. Zadravec, M.; Slavec, B.; Krapež, U.; Gombač, M.; Švara, T.; Poljšak-Prijatelj, M.; Gruntar, I.; Račnik, J. Trichomonosis Outbreak in a Flock of Canaries (Serinus canaria f. domestica) Caused by a Finch Epidemic Strain of Trichomonas gallinae. Vet. Parasitol. 2017, 239, 90–93. [CrossRef] 7. Hochleithner, M.; Hochleithner, C. The Prevalence of Trichomonas gallinae in Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) in a Veterinary Clinic in Vienna between 2000-2019. Vet. Med. 2021, 66, 490–493. [CrossRef] 8. Fritzsche, K. Zur Therapie Der Trichomoniasis Der Tauben. Zent. Veterinärmedizin 1955, 2, 392–407. [CrossRef] 9. Hegemann, E.D.; Knüber, H.; Krone, O. Kurze Mitteilungen: Trichomonose Bei Bildlebenden Sperbern (Accipitur nisus). Vogelwarte 2003, 42, 352–354. 10. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [CrossRef] 11. Jaquette, D.S. Copper Sulfate as a Treatment For Subclinical Trichomoniasis in Pigeons. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1948, 9, 206–209. 12. Samberg, Y.; Bornstein, S. In Vitro Action of Various Chemical Agents on Trichomonas gallinae. Poult. Sci. 1955, 34, 157–164. [CrossRef] 13. Stabler, R.M. The Effect of Furazolidone on Pigeon Trichomoniasis Due to Trichomonas gallinae. J. Parasitol. 1957, 43, 280–282. [CrossRef] 14. Stabler, R.M.; Mellentin, R.W. Effect of 2-Amino-5-Nitrothiazole (Enheptin) and Other Drugs on Trichomonas gallinae Infection in the Domestic Pigeon. J. Parasitol. 1953, 39, 637–642. [CrossRef] 15. McLoughlin, D.K. Observations on the Treatment of Trichomonas gallinae in Pigeons. Avian Dis. 1966, 10, 288–290. [CrossRef] 16. Stabler, R.M.; Schmittner, S.M.; Harmon, W.M. Success of Soluble 2-Amino-5-Nitrothiazole in the Treatment of Trichomoniasis in the Domestic Pigeon. Poult. Sci. 1958, 37, 352–355. [CrossRef] 17. Devos, A.; Viaene, N.; Staelens, M. Behandeling van de trichomonas-besmetting bij duiven met thiazol-en imidazol-derivaten. Vlaams Diergeneeskd. Tijdschr. 1965, 34, 241–252. 18. Panigrahy, B.; Grimes, J.E.; Glass, S.E.; Naqi, S.A.; Hall, C.F. Diseases of Pigeons and Doves in Texas: Clinical Findings and Recommendations for Control. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1982, 181, 384–386. 19. Inghelbrecht, S.; Vermeersch, H.; Ronsmans, S.; Remon, J.P.; Debacker, P.; Vercruysse, J. Pharmacokinetics and Anti-Trichomonal Efficacy of a Dimetridazole Tablet and Water-Soluble Powder in Homing Pigeons (Columba livia). J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 1996, 19, 62–67. [CrossRef] http://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182013002096 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476968 http://doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2014.967660 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25262786 http://doi.org/10.1136/vr.136.14.358 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7610541 http://doi.org/10.1136/vr.118.16.447 http://doi.org/10.1638/2009-0188R.1 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2017.04.001 http://doi.org/10.17221/110/2020-VETMED http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0442.1955.tb00081.x http://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 http://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0340157 http://doi.org/10.2307/3274346 http://doi.org/10.2307/3274084 http://doi.org/10.2307/1588274 http://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0580352 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.1996.tb00010.x Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 16 of 17 20. Gravendyck, vM.; Gravendyck, A.S.; Kaleta, E.F. Zur Oralen Verträglichkeit Und Wirksamkeit von 1,2 Dimethyl·5·Nitroimidazol (Dimetridazol) Gegen Die Spontane Rachentrichomonose (Gelber Knopf) Herpesvirus-Infizierter Brieftauben. Tierärztl. Umschau 1997, 52, 134–143. 21. Kurtdede, A.; Haydardedeo¨glu, A.E.; Uarl, K.; Karakurum, M.Ç.; Cingi, C.Ç.; Kar, S. Treatment of Trichomoniasis with Metronidazole and Oxytetracycline Combination in Pigeons. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2007, 13, 199–202. [CrossRef] 22. Tabari, M.A.; Poźniak, B.; Youssefi, M.R.; Roudaki Sarvandani, M.R.; Giorgi, M. Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Metronidazole in Healthy and Trichomonas gallinae Infected Pigeons (Columba livia, Var. domestica). Br. Poult. Sci. 2021, 62, 485–491. [CrossRef] 23. Kucera, J.; Bednirk, P.; Nastuneak, J. Veryfying the Therapeutic Action of the Czechoslovak Ornidazol [1-(3-Chloro-2- Hydroxypropil)-2-Methyl-5-Nitroimidazol] in Pigeons with Trichomoniasis. Vet. Med. 1988, 33, 551–556. 24. Aydin, L.; Coskun, S.; Güleğen, E. Efficacy of Carnidazole (Spatrix®) and Metronidazole (Flagyl®) against Trichomonas gallinae in Naturally Infected Pigeons. Acta Parasitol. Turc. 2000, 24, 65–66. 25. Ionita, M.; FlorincaŞ, O.N.; Mitrea, I.L. Outbreak of Trichomonosis in Racing Pigeons: Diagnosis and Treatment. Rev. Română De Med. Vet. 2016, 26, 13–17. 26. Gawel, A.; Piasecki, T.; Mazurkievicz, M. Skutecznosc Preparatu Nifursol 50% w Zwalczaniu Trichomonozy Golêbi. Med. Wet 2007, 63, 823–826. 27. Rettig, T. Trichomoniasis in a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocophalus) Diagnosis and Successful Treatment with Dimetridazole. J. Zoo Anim. Med. 1978, 9, 98–100. [CrossRef] 28. Stone, W.B.; Nye, P.E. Trichomoniasis in Bald Eagles. Wilson Bull. 1981, 93, 109. 29. Kelly-Clark, W.K.; McBurney, S.; Forzán, M.J.; Desmarchelier, M.; Greenwood, S.J. Detection and Characterization of a Trichomonas Isolate from a Rehabilitated Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2013, 44, 1123–1126. [CrossRef] 30. Martínez-Herrero, M.d.C.; González-González, F.; López-Márquez, I.; García-Peña, F.J.; Sansano-Maestre, J.; Martínez-Díaz, R.A.; Ponce-Gordo, F.; Garijo-Toledo, M.M.; Gómez-Muñoz, M.T. Oropharyngeal Trichomonosis Due to Trichomonas gypaetinii in a Cinereous Vulture (Aegypius monachus) Fledgling in Spain. J. Wildl. Dis. 2019, 55, 153–157. [CrossRef] 31. Höfle, U.; Gortazar, C.; Ortíz, J.A.; Knispel, B.; Kaleta, E.F. Outbreak of Trichomoniasis in a Woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) Wintering Roost. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2004, 50, 73–77. [CrossRef] 32. Mirzaei, M.; Ghashghaei, O.; Khedri, J. First Report of an Outbreak Trichomoniasis in Turkey in Sistan, Iran. J. Parasit. Dis. 2016, 40, 61–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Swinnerton, K.J.; Greenwood, A.G.; Chapman, R.E.; Jones, C.G. The Incidence of the Parasitic Disease Trichomoniasis and Its Treatment in Reintroduced and Wild Pink Pigeons Columba mayeri. Ibis 2005, 147, 772–782. [CrossRef] 34. Lumeij, J.T.; Zwijnenberg, R.J.G. Failure of Nitro-Imidazole Drugs to Control Trichomoniasis in the Racing Pigeon (Columba livia domestica). Avian Pathol. 1990, 19, 165–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Franssen, F.F.J.; Lumeij, J.T. In Vitro Nitroimidazole Resistance of Trichomonas gallinae and Successful Therapy with an Increased Dosage of Ronidazole in Racing Pigeons (Columba livia domestica). J Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 1992, 15, 409–415. [CrossRef] 36. McKeon, T.; Dunsmore, J.; Raidal, S.R. Trichomonas gallinae in Budgerigars and Columbid Birds in Perth, Western Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 1997, 75, 652–655. [CrossRef] 37. Duchatel, J.P.; Vindevogel, H. Sensibilité in Vitro Au ronidazole de Différentes Souches de Trichomonas gallinae de Pigeons. Ann. Méd. Vét. 1998, 142, 335–338. 38. Munoz, E.; Castella, J.; Gutierrez, J.F. In Vivo and in Vitro Sensitivity of Trichomonas gallinae to Some Nitroimidazole Drugs. Vet. Parasitol. 1998, 78, 239–246. [CrossRef] 39. Zimre-Grabensteiner, E.; Arshad, N.; Amin, A.; Hess, M. Genetically Different Clonal Isolates of Trichomonas gallinae, obtained from the Same Bird, Can Vary in Their Drug Susceptibility, an in Vitro Evidence. Parasitol. Int. 2011, 60, 213–215. [CrossRef] 40. Seddiek, S.A.; El-Shorbagy, M.M.; Khater, H.F.; Ali, A.M. The Antitrichomonal Efficacy of Garlic and Metronidazole against Trichomonas gallinae Infecting Domestic Pigeons. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 1319–1329. [CrossRef] 41. Rouffaer, L.O.; Adriaensen, C.; de Boeck, C.; Claerebout, E.; Martel, A. Racing Pigeons: A Reservoir for Nitro-Imidazole-Resistant Trichomonas gallinae. J. Parasitol. 2014, 100, 360–363. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Gerhold, R.W.; Yabsley, M.J.; Smith, A.J.; Ostergaardi, E.; Mannan, W.; Cann, J.D.; Fischer, J.R. Molecular Characterization of the Trichomonas gallinae Morphologic Complex in the United States. J. Parasitol. 2008, 94, 1335–1341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Sansano-Maestre, J.; Garijo-Toledo, M.M.; Gómez-Muñoz, M.T. Prevalence and Genotyping of Trichomonas gallinae in Pigeons and Birds of Prey. Avian Pathol. 2009, 38, 201–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Tavassoli, M.; Baran, A.I.; Tajik, H.; Moradi, M.; Pourseyed, S.H. Novel in Vitro Efficiency of Chitosan Biomolecule against Trichomonas gallinae. Iran J. Parasitol. 2012, 7, 92–96. [PubMed] 45. Yunessnia lehi, A.; Shagholani, H.; Ghorbani, M.; Nikpay, A.; Soleimani Lashkenari, M.; Soltani, M. Chitosan Nanocapsule- Mounted Cellulose Nanofibrils as Nanoships for Smart Drug Delivery Systems and Treatment of Avian Trichomoniasis. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2019, 95, 290–299. [CrossRef] 46. Yunessnia lehi, A.; Shagholani, H.; Nikpay, A.; Ghorbani, M.; Soleimani lashkenari, M.; Soltani, M. Synthesis and Modification of Crystalline SBA-15 Nanowhiskers as a PH-Sensitive Metronidazole Nanocarrier System. Int. J. Pharm. 2019, 555, 28–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed] http://doi.org/10.9775/kvfd.2007.22-G http://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2021.1881043 http://doi.org/10.2307/20460220 http://doi.org/10.1638/2013-0085R.1 http://doi.org/10.7589/2017-11-274 http://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-004-0043-2 http://doi.org/10.1007/s12639-014-0445-3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27065599 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2005.00466.x http://doi.org/10.1080/03079459008418665 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18679923 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.1992.tb01032.x http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1997.tb15363.x http://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4017(98)00164-2 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2011.02.003 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-014-3771-6 http://doi.org/10.1645/13-359.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456034 http://doi.org/10.1645/GE-1585.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18576862 http://doi.org/10.1080/03079450902912135 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19468936 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23133478 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2018.07.014 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.11.034 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30448312 Microorganisms 2022, 10, 2297 17 of 17 47. Rezaee, H.; Ghorbani, M.; Nikpay, A.; Soltani, M. Tannic Acid-Coated Zeolite Y Nanoparticles as Novel Drug Nanocarrier with Controlled Release Behavior and Anti-Protozoan Activity against Trichomonas gallinae. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2019, 40, 587–593. [CrossRef] 48. Tabari, M.A.; Poźniak, B.; Abrishami, A.; Moradpour, A.A.; Shahavi, M.H.; Kazemi, S.; Youssefi, M.R. Antitrichomonal Activity of Metronidazole-Loaded Lactoferrin Nanoparticles in Pigeon Trichomoniasis. Parasitol. Res 2021, 120, 3263–3272. [CrossRef] 49. Soleimani Lashkenari, M.; Nikpay, A.; Soltani, M.; Gerayeli, A. In Vitro Antiprotozoal Activity of Poly(Rhodanine)-Coated Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles against Trichomonas gallinae. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2020, 41, 495–502. [CrossRef] 50. Adebajo, A.C.; Iwalewa, E.O.; Obuotor, E.M.; Ibikunle, G.F.; Omisore, N.O.; Adewunmi, C.O.; Obaparusi, O.O.; Klaes, M.; Adetogun, G.E.; Schmidt, T.J.; et al. Pharmacological Properties of the Extract and Some Isolated Compounds of Clausena lansium Stem Bark: Anti-Trichomonal, Antidiabetic, Anti-Inflammatory, Hepatoprotective and Antioxidant Effects. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 122, 10–19. [CrossRef] 51. Adebajo, A.C.; Olayiwola, G.; Verspohl, J.E.; Iwalewa, E.O.; Omisore, N.O.A.; Bergenthal, D.; Kumar, V.; Adesina, S.K. Evaluation of the Ethnomedical Claims of Murraya koenigii. Pharm. Biol. 2004, 42, 610–620. [CrossRef] 52. Adebajo, A.C.; Olaniyan, K.A.; Adewunmi, C.O. Anti-Trichomonal Activities of Extracts and Furocoumarins of Murraya Koenigii Fruits. Ife J. Sci. 2007, 9, 155–160. [CrossRef] 53. Ibikunle, G.F.; Adebajo, A.C.; Famuyiwa, F.G.; Aladesanmi, A.J.; Adewunmi, C.O. In-Vitro Evaluation of Anti-Trichomonal Activities of Eugenia uniflora Leaf. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med. 2011, 8, 170–176. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. Badparva, E.; Badparva, S.; Badparva, M.; Kheirandish, F. Comparing Effect of Some Herbal Medicines Extract with Metronidazole for Treatment of Trichomoniasis in Birds. Der Pharma Chem. 2016, 8, 241–244. 55. Nikpay, A.; Soltani, M. In Vitro Anti-Parasitic Activities of Pulicaria dysenterica and Lycopus europaeus Methanolic Extracts against Trichomonas gallinae. J. Herb. Med. Pharmacol. 2018, 7, 112–118. [CrossRef] 56. Gbolade, A.A.; Arcoraci, T.; D’Arrigo, M.; Olorunmola, F.O.; Biondi, D.M.; Ruberto, G. Essential Oils of Dennettia tripetala Bak. f. Stem Bark and Leaf—Constituents and Biological Activities. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2008, 3, 1925–1930. [CrossRef] 57. Youssefi, M.R.; Abouhosseini Tabari, M.; Moghadamnia, A.A. In Vitro and in Vivo Activity of Artemisia Sieberi against Trichomonas gallinae. Iran J. Vet. Res. 2017, 18, 25–29. [CrossRef] 58. Baccega, B.; Wahast Islabão, Y.; Brauner de Mello, A.; Obelar Martins, F.; Caetano dos Santos, C.; Ferreira Ourique, A.; da Silva Gündel, S.; Raquel Pegoraro de Macedo, M.; Elena Silveira Vianna, É.; Amélia da Rosa Farias, N.; et al. In Vitro and in Vivo Activity of the Essential Oil and Nanoemulsion of Cymbopogon flexuosus against Trichomonas gallinae. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2021, 11, 32–43. 59. Abouhosseini Tabari, M.; Youssefi, M.R. In Vitro and in Vivo Evaluations of Pelargonium roseum Essential Oil Activity against Trichomonas gallinae. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2018, 8, 136–142. [CrossRef] 60. Bailén, M.; Díaz-Castellanos, I.; Azami-Conesa, I.; Alonso Fernández, S.; Martínez-Díaz, R.A.; Navarro-Rocha, J.; Gómez-Muñoz, M.T.; González-Coloma, A. Anti-Trichomonas gallinae Activity of Essential Oils and Main Compounds from Lamiaceae and Asteraceae Plants. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 981763. [CrossRef] 61. Malekifard, F.; Tavassoli, M.; Alimoradi, M. In Vitro Assessment of Anti-Trichomonas Effects of Zingiber officinale and Lavandula angustifolia Alcoholic Extracts on Trichomonas gallinae. Vet. Res. Forum 2021, 12, 95–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 62. Iwalewa, E.O.; Omisore, N.O.; Adewunmi, C.O.; Gbolade, A.A.; Ademowo, O.G.; Nneji, C.; Agboola, O.I.; Daniyan, O.M. Anti-Protozoan Activities of Harungana madagascariensis Stem Bark Extract on Trichomonads and Malaria. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 117, 507–511. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 63. Tabari, M.A.; Youssefi, M.R.; Moghadamnia, A.A. Antitrichomonal Activity of Peganum harmala Alkaloid Extract against Trichomoniasis in Pigeon (Columba livia domestica). Br. Poult. Sci. 2017, 58, 236–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 64. Adebajo, A.C.; Ayoola, O.F.; Iwalewa, E.O.; Akindahunsi, A.A.; Omisore, N.O.A.; Adewunmi, C.O.; Adenowo, T.K. Anti- Trichomonal, Biochemical and Toxicological Activities of Methanolic Extract and Some Carbazole Alkaloids Isolated from the Leaves of Murraya koenigii Growing in Nigeria. Phytomedicine 2006, 13, 246–254. [CrossRef] 65. Yazdani, N.; Youssefi, M.R.; Tabari, M.A. Antitrichomonal Activity of Nanoemulsion of Carvacrol on Trichomonas galline: Formulation Development and in Vitro Characterization. Ann. Parasitol. 2022, 68, 151–157. [CrossRef] http://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2018.1475240 http://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-021-07263-z http://doi.org/10.1080/01932691.2019.1591972 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.11.015 http://doi.org/10.1080/13880200490902518 http://doi.org/10.4314/ijs.v9i2.32243 http://doi.org/10.4314/ajtcam.v8i2.63205 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238499 http://doi.org/10.15171/jhp.2018.19 http://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X0800301127 http://doi.org/10.22099/ijvr.2017.4025 http://doi.org/10.22038/ajp.2017.20763.1788 http://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.981763 http://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2019.102620.2444 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33953879 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.02.019 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18372133 http://doi.org/10.1080/00071668.2017.1280725 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28084792 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2004.12.002 http://doi.org/10.17420/ap6801.419 Introduction Materials and Methods Databases and Strategy of Search Reasons for Exclusion Results and Discussion Search Result Treatments against T. gallinae Resistance of T. gallinae to Nitroimidazoles In Vivo Resistance In Vitro Resistance Alternatives to the Traditional Treatment of Oropharyngeal Avian Trichomonosis Old Drugs, New Molecules and Novel Delivery Systems Natural Products from Plants Conclusions References