| Literature DB >> 29622033 |
Sonia Ares Gomez1, Javier Lucientes Curdi2, Juan Antonio Castillo Hernandez2, Paz Peris Peris2, Adriana Esteban Gil2, Ronald Vladimir Oropeza Velasquez2, Paula Ortega Hernandez2, Albert Picado3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) infantum is an important disease in humans and dogs. Different mammal species are reservoirs but dogs are considered to be the main one. Phlebotomine sand flies are the proven vector. Four systemic insecticides approved for their use in dogs were previously selected based on their potential to be used in endemic countries as part of the control programs of ZVL. These insecticides are proved to be safe and effective against the on-label insects and parasites, but there is no information about their activity against phlebotomine sand flies.Entities:
Keywords: Dogs; Sand flies; Systemic insecticides; Zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29622033 PMCID: PMC5887228 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2820-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Trial 1 results from the negative binomial mixed model that included treatment group, sample day and their interaction as fixed effects and dog as random effect. Results are presented as the incidence rate ratio (IRR) which is the increase in the rate of incidence compared with control at each sampling day
| Covariates effecta | IRRb | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.39 | 0.74–2.67 | 0.31 |
| Fluralaner | 1.94 | 1.14–3.39 | 0.01* |
| Moxidectin | 0.60 | 0.26–1.29 | 0.21 |
| Spinosad | 0.90 | 0.43–1.80 | 0.77 |
| Day 4: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.34 | 0.82–2.18 | 0.23 |
| Fluralaner | 1.68 | 1.05–2.71 | 0.03* |
| Moxidectin | 0.77 | 0.45–1.31 | 0.34 |
| Spinosad | 1.02 | 0.61–1.70 | 0.92 |
| Day 21: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.11 | 0.67–1.89 | 0.67 |
| Fluralaner | 0.81 | 0.47–1.38 | 0.45 |
| Moxidectin | 0.91 | 0.54–1.53 | 0.73 |
| Spinosad | 0.96 | 0.57–1.61 | 0.89 |
| Day 31: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.51 | 0.81–2.89 | 0.20 |
| Fluralaner | 1.21 | 0.64–2.31 | 0.55 |
| Moxidectin | 1.33 | 0.65–2.74 | 0.41 |
| Spinosad | 1.41 | 0.77–2.66 | 0.27 |
aThe covariate effects used control group at each corresponding day after treatment as baseline comparison [Pr(>|z|)]
bIncidence rate ratio, as the ratio between the incidence rate in control group and the incidence rate for each treatment group, at the corresponding sampling day after treatment
*Significance level defined at α = 0.05
Fig. 1Probability of death for a phlebotomine 24 h after blood-feeding for each treatment group and sampling day estimated from a mixed model for a negative binomial logistic regression. The variable dog was included as a random effect, treatement, days after treatment, and their interaction were covariates. a Trial 1: afoxolaner vs fluralaner vs moxidectin vs spinosad vs control. b Trial 2: fluralaner vs control
Trial 1 results from the cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, sample day and their interaction as fixed effects and dog as random effect. Results are presented as the hazard rate ratio (HRR) which is the increase in the hazard rate compared with control at each sampling day
| Covariates effecta | HRRb | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.13 | 0.85–1.56 | 0.45 |
| Fluralaner | 1.47 | 1.10–1.96 | < 0.001* |
| Moxidectin | 0.73 | 0.51–1.01 | 0.06 |
| Spinosad | 0.76 | 0.54–1.08 | 0.08 |
| Day 4: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.25 | 0.93–1.67 | 0.08 |
| Fluralaner | 1.83 | 1.36–2.45 | < 0.001* |
| Moxidectin | 0.84 | 0.62–1.13 | 0.17 |
| Spinosad | 0.74 | 0.53–1.02 | 0.33 |
| Day 21: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.39 | 0.98–1.86 | 0.07 |
| Fluralaner | 0.96 | 0.72–1.28 | 0.91 |
| Moxidectin | 1.06 | 0.78–1.39 | 0.55 |
| Spinosad | 1.04 | 0.76–1.38 | 0.61 |
| Day 31: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Afoxolaner | 1.42 | 0.99–1.93 | 0.08 |
| Fluralaner | 1.25 | 0.93–1.68 | 0.43 |
| Moxidectin | 1.12 | 0.65–1.64 | 0.57 |
| Spinosad | 0.99 | 0.73–1.32 | 0.37 |
aThe covariate effects used control group at each corresponding day after treatment as baseline comparison [Pr(>|z|)]
bHazard rate ratio, as the ratio between the hazard rate in control group and the hazard rate for each treatment group, at the corresponding sampling day after treatment
*Significance level defined at α = 0.05
Fig. 2Hazard rate ratio compared with control for each treatment group and sampling day estimated from a mixed cox proportional hazard model. The variable dog was included as a random effect treatment, days after treatment, and their interaction were covariates. a Trial 1: afoxolaner vs fluralaner vs moxidectin vs spinosad vs control. b Trial 2: fluralaner vs control
Trial 2 results from the negative binomial mixed model that included treatment group, sample day and their interaction as fixed effects and dog as random effect. Results are presented as the incidence rate ratio (IRR) which is the increase in the rate of incidence compared with control at each sampling day
| Covariates effecta | IRRb | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.24 | 0.78–1.96 | 0.35 |
| Day 4: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.40 | 0.90–2.18 | 0.13 |
| Day 7: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.42 | 0.92–2.19 | 0.11 |
| Day 14: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.64 | 1.16–2.54 | 0.025* |
| Day 18: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.22 | 0.77–1.91 | 0.38 |
| Day 32: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.97 | 1.23–3.17 | 0.004* |
| Day 39: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.92 | 0.59–1.44 | 0.73 |
| Day 51: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.24 | 0.93–1.66 | 0.14 |
| Day 84: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.93 | 0.68–1.27 | 0.68 |
aThe covariate effects used control group at each corresponding day after treatment as baseline comparison [Pr(>|z|)]
bIncidence rate ratio, as the ratio between the incidence rate in control group and the incidence rate for each treatment group, at the corresponding sampling day after treatment
*Significance level defined at α = 0.05
Trial 2 results from the Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, sample day and their interaction as fixed effects and dog as random effect. Results are presented as the hazard rate ratio (HRR) which is the increase in the hazard rate compared with control at each sampling day
| Covariates effecta | HRRb | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 2: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.97 | 0.70–1.36 | 0.90 |
| Day 4: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.12 | 0.70–1.53 | 0.43 |
| Day 7: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.27 | 0.94–1.72 | 0.12 |
| Day 14: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.92 | 1.40–2.64 | <0.0001* |
| Day 18: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.15 | 0.84–1.59 | 0.36 |
| Day 32: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 1.28 | 0.94–1.75 | 0.10 |
| Day 39: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.86 | 0.65–1.15 | 0.33 |
| Day 51: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.86 | 0.64–1.15 | 0.22 |
| Day 84: Control | Reference | – | – |
| Fluralaner | 0.73 | 0.53–1.05 | 0.09 |
aThe covariate effects used control group at each corresponding day after treatment as baseline comparison [Pr(>|z|)]
bHazard rate ratio, as the ratio between the hazard rate in control group and the hazard rate for each treatment group, at the corresponding sampling day after treatment
*Significance level defined at α = 0.05