| Literature DB >> 27241176 |
Janina Taenzler1, Julian Liebenberg2, Machiel Mienie3, William R Everett4, David R Young5, Thomas S Vihtelic6, Fangshi Sun7, Eva Zschiesche8, Rainer K A Roepke8, Anja R Heckeroth8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of fluralaner spot-on solution administered once topically against induced infestations with Rhipicephalus sanguineus was evaluated in dogs over a 12-week post-treatment period.Entities:
Keywords: Bravecto™ Spot-on Solution; Dog; Efficacy; Fluralaner; Rhipicephalus sanguineus; Tick
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27241176 PMCID: PMC4886405 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1523-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Study details
| Study set-up | Study site | Animals per group | Dog breed | Weight (kg) | Age (years) | Tick isolate used | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study number | Treatment group | Control group | |||||
| 1 | ClinVet (South Africa) | 10 | 10 | Mixed and Beagles | 8.0–20.2 | 0.9–6 | EU |
| 2 | Malelane Research Unit, MSD Animal Health (South Africa) | 8 | 8 | Mongrels and Labradors | 10.7–35.6 | 3–6 | SA |
| 3 | Malelane Research Unit, MSD Animal Health (South Africa) | 8 | 8 | Mongrels and Labradors | 11.3–29.9 | 2–6 | SA |
| 4 | BerTek, USA | 10 | 10 | Mixed | 6.8–14.9 | 2.4–11.3 | USA |
| 5 | Young Veterinary Research Services, USA | 10 | 10 | Beagles | 7.7–16.3 | 5.5–6.6 | USA |
| 6 | MPI Research, USA | 10 | 10 | Beagles | 4.3–8.7 | ≥0.5 | USA |
Abbreviations: EU Europe, SA South Africa, USA United States
Mean tick counts and efficacy (%) after a single topical fluralaner administration (Bravecto™ spot-on solution) against Rh. sanguineus infestations in dogs
| Assessment time points a | Study day 2 | Study day 30 | Study day 58 | Study day 86 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Fluralaner | Control | Fluralaner | Control | Fluralaner | Control | Fluralaner | Control | |
| 1 | Meanb tick counts ( | 1.8 (3.8) | 20.5 (25.1) | 0 (0) | 29.1 (29.8) | 0 (0) | 32.6 (32.9) | 0 (0) | 33.8 (34.0) |
| Count range ( | 0–19 | 4e–44 | 0 | 20–39 | 0 | 26–39 | 0 | 29–39 | |
| Efficacyc (%) | 91.1 (84.9) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | |||||
|
| 0.0004 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 2 | Meanb tick counts ( | 0 (0) | 18.7 (19.9) | 0 (0) | 13.8 (16.5) | 0 (0) | 24.7 (26.3) | 0.1 (0.1) | 34.2 (35.8) |
| Count range ( | 0 | 10f–34 | 0 | 3f–34 | 0 | 16–37 | 0–1 | 26–67 | |
| Efficacy c (%) | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | |||||
|
| < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 3 | Meanb tick counts ( | 0 (0) | 10.4 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 24.3 (25.5) | 0 (0) | 15.7 (17.9) | 0 (0) | 19.8 (23.3) |
| Count range ( | 0 | 4g–37 | 0 | 14–38 | 0 | 6g–26 | 0 | 6g–35 | |
| Efficacy c (%) | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | |||||
|
| < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 4 | Meanb tick counts ( | 0.9 (2.8) | 37.4 (38.6) | 0 (0) | 26.1 (27.7) | 0.2 (0.3) | 18.1 (19.6) | 0.6 (1.1) | 19.4 (20.8) |
| Count range ( | 0–23 | 24–51 | 0 | 16–41 | 0–2 | 8h–33 | 0–5 | 12h–32 | |
| Efficacy c (%) | 97.6 (92.7) d | 100 (100) d | 98.9 (98.5) d | 96.7 (94.7) d | |||||
|
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |||||
| 5 | Meanb tick counts ( | 0.7 (1.8) | 21.1 (25.0) | 0 (0) | 26.4 (26.9) | 0 (0) | 28.8 (29.8) | 0.1 (0.1) | 22.3 (23.1) |
| Count range ( | 0–11 | 2i–40 | 0 | 19–37 | 0 | 18–43 | 1–0 | 13–33 | |
| Efficacy c (%) | 96.6 (92.8) d | 100 (100) d | 100 (100) d | 99.7 (99.6) d | |||||
|
| ≤ 0.001 | ≤ 0.001 | ≤ 0.001 | ≤ 0.001 | |||||
| 6 | Meanb tick counts ( | 0.1 (0.1) | 30.4 (30.8) | 0.1 (0.1) | 24.0 (24.5) | 0.1 (0.1) | 17.6 (18.7) | 0.0 (0.0) | 17.8 (18.3) |
| Count range ( | 0–1 | 21–38 | 0–1 | 18–31 | 0–1 | 12j–33 | 0 | 11j–25 | |
| Efficacy c (%) | 99.8 (99.7) d | 99.7 (99.6) d | 99.6 (99.5) d | 100 (100) d | |||||
|
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |||||
aAssessment of ticks 48 h (± 4 h) after treatment or re-infestation following treatment; bGeometric mean (arithmetic mean); cCalculated based on geometric mean (arithmetic mean); dLog-counts of live ticks from the treatment group were significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) from log-counts of the respective untreated control group
e eight from ten dogs adequately infested; f seven from eight dogs adequately infested (Study day (SD) 2), five from eight dogs adequately infested (SD 30); g four from eight dogs adequately infested (SD 2), six from eight dogs adequately infested (SD 58), six from eight dogs adequately infested (SD 86); h eight from ten dogs adequately infested (Study day (SD) 58 and SD 86): i nine from ten dogs adequately infested (Study day (SD) 2); j eight from ten dogs adequately infested (SD58), nine from ten dogs adequately infested (SD86)