| Literature DB >> 30012222 |
Michael W Dryden1, Michael S Canfield2, Cara Bocon3, Letitia Phan3, Emily Niedfeldt3, Amanda Kinnon3, Stanislaw A Warcholek3, Vicki Smith3, Todd S Bress2, Nicole Smith2, Kathleen Heaney4, Christine Royal4, Dorothy Normile4, Robert Armstrong4, Fangshi Sun4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An investigation was conducted in West Central Florida, USA to evaluate the efficacy of either topically applied fluralaner or topically applied selamectin to control flea infestations, minimize dermatologic lesions and reduce pruritus in naturally flea infested cats over a 12-week period. When dogs were present in the households, they were treated with either oral fluralaner (if household cats were treated with topical fluralaner) or oral sarolaner (if household cats were treated with topical selamectin).Entities:
Keywords: Cats; Ctenocephalides felis felis; Dogs; Flea allergy dermatitis; Flea control; Fluralaner; Pruritus; Sarolaner; Selamectin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30012222 PMCID: PMC6048752 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2995-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Flea counts on naturally infested cats in households in Florida before and after treatment with either a single topical dose of fluralaner or three consecutive monthly doses of selamectin
| Treatment group | No. of cats on day 0 | Days post-treatment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28–30 | 40-45 | 56-60 | 82-86 | |||
| Fluralaner1 | 31 | Geomean flea count3 | 11.4a,x | 0.4b,y | 0.3b,y | 0.1b,y | 0.2b,y | 0.1b,y | 0.1b,y | 0.0b,y |
| Range | (5–63) | (0–4) | (0–4) | (0–3) | (0–2) | (0–2) | (0–3) | (0–0) | ||
| % control4 | 96.6 | 97.3 | 99.3 | 98.5 | 99.5 | 99.2 | 100 | |||
| % (#) cats with no fleas | 0.0a,x (0/31) | 69.0b,y (20/29) | 71.0b,y (22/31) | 93.5b,y | 80.6b,y | 93.5b,y | 90.3b,y | 100b,y | ||
| Selamectin2 | 29 | Geomean flea count3 | 12.7a,x | 2.6a,y | 3.2a,y | 3.6a,y | 2.8a,y | 0.8a,y | 1.1a,y | 1.1a,y |
| Range | (5–44) | (0–23) | (0–29) | (0–50) | (0–35) | (0–14) | (0–11) | (0–8) | ||
| % control4 | 79.4 | 74.6 | 71.3 | 77.8 | 93.8 | 91.0 | 91.3 | |||
| % (#) cats with no fleas | 0.0a,x | 24.1a,y | 28.6a,y | 17.2a,x | 17.2a,x | 37.0a,y | 44.4a,y | 38.5a,y | ||
1In the fluralaner group cats were treated once topically on day 0 (Bravecto® Topical solution; Merck Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA)
2In the selamectin group cats were treated on day 0 and once between days 28–30 and 56–60 (Revolution®; Zoetis, Whippany, NJ, USA)
3Geometric mean numbers of fleas in comb counts
4{(Day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts – day x geometric mean animal area flea counts) / day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts)} × 100
a,bGeometric mean flea counts in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.001; │t│≥ 3.70)
x,yGeometric mean flea counts in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; │t│≥ 7.14)
a,bPercent of flea-free cats in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.002; Fisher’s exact test)
x,yPercent of flea- free cats in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.01; Fisher’s exact test)
Flea counts on naturally infested dogs in households in Florida before and after treatment with a single oral dose of fluralaner or three consecutive monthly doses of sarolaner
| Treatment group | No. of dogs on day 0 | Days post-treatment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28–30 | 40–45 | 56–60 | 82–86 | |||
| Fluralaner1 | 18 | Geomean flea count3 | 26.9b,x | 0.1a,y | 0.3a,y | 0.1a,y | 0.0a,y | 0.1a,y | 0.0a,y | 0.0a,y |
| Range | (5–131) | (0–1) | (0–3) | (0–2) | (0–0) | (0–2) | (0–0) | (0–0) | ||
| % control4 | 99.7 | 99.0 | 99.8 | 100 | 99.6 | 100 | 100 | |||
| % (#) dogs with no fleas | 0.0a,x | 88.9a,y | 72.2a,y | 94.4a,y | 100a,y | 88.9a,y | 100a,y | 100a,y | ||
| Sarolaner2 | 13 | Geomean flea count3 | 37.9a,x | 0.1a,y | 0.1a,y | 0.2a,y | 0.1a,y | 0.0a,y | 0.0a,y | 0.0a,y |
| Range | (10–171) | (0–1) | (0–1) | (0–2) | (0–1) | (0–0) | (0–0) | (0–0) | ||
| % control4 | 99.7 | 99.8 | 99.4 | 99.9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| % (#) dogs with no fleas | 0.0a,x | 84.6a,y | 91.7a,y | 76.9a,y | 92.3a,y | 100a,y | 100a,y | 100a,y | ||
1In the fluralaner group dogs were treated once orally on day 0 (Bravecto chew; Merck Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA)
2In the sarolaner group dogs were treated on day 0 and once between days 28–30 and 56–60 (Simparica chew; Zoetis, Whippany, NJ, USA)
3Geometric mean numbers of fleas in area counts
4{(Day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts – day x geometric mean animal area flea counts) / day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts)} × 100
a,bGeometric mean flea counts in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (day 0, P = 0.034; │t│ = 2.14 )
x,yGeometric mean flea counts in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; │t│ ≥ 22.83)
a,bPercent of flea- free dogs in a column with like letter superscripts are not significantly different (P > 0.284; Fisher’s exact test)
x,yPercent of flea- free dogs in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; Fisher’s exact test)
Fleas caught in intermittent-light flea traps in naturally infested homes in Florida before and after treatment of all dogs and cats in the homes with either a single administration of fluralaner or three consecutive monthly administrations of sarolaner (dogs) and selamectin (cats)
| Treatment group | Days post-treatment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28–30 | 40–45 | 56–60 | 82–86 | |||
| Fluralaner1 | 20 homes on study | |||||||||
| Geomean flea count3 | 32.4a,x | 6.3a,y | 7.2a,y | 1.6b,y | 0.5a,y | 0.2a,y | 0.1a,y | 0.04a,y | ||
| Range | (5–183) | (0–113) | (0–156) | (0–19) | (0–6) | (0–5) | (0–1) | (0–1) | ||
| % control4 | 80.4 | 77.9 | 95.0 | 98.4 | 99.4 | 99.8 | 99.9 | |||
| % (#) homes with 0 fleas in traps | 0.0a,x (0/20) | 10.5a,x (2/19) | 20.0a,x (4/20) | 30.0a,y (6/20) | 70.0a,y (14/20) | 85.0a,y (17/20 | 90.0a,y (18/20) | 95.0a,y (19/20) | ||
| % (#) homes with no fleas (traps, cats or dogs) | 0.0a,x (0/20) | 15.0a,x (3/20) | 15.0a,x (3/20) | 30.0b,y (6/20) | 60.0b,y (12/20) | 75.0b,y (15/20) | 80.0b,y (16/20) | 95.0b,y (19/20) | ||
| Selamectin/Sarolaner2 | 18 homes on study | Geomean flea count3 | 28.0a,x | 4.7a,y | 4.8a,y | 4.2a,y | 1.4a,y | 0.04a,y | 0.4a,y | 0.4a,y |
| Range | (5–152) | (0–195) | (0–93) | (0–22) | (0–1) | (0–14) | (0–39) | (0–12) | ||
| % control4 | 83.1 | 82.7 | 85.0 | 95.1 | 99.9 | 98.8 | 98.5 | |||
| % (#) homes with 0 fleas in traps | 0.0a,x (0/18) | 16.7a,x (3/18) | 17.6a,x (3/17) | 22.2a,x (4/18) | 44.4a,y (8/18) | 94.1a,y (16/17) | 82.4a,y (14/17) | 68.8a,y (11/16) | ||
| % (#) homes with no fleas (traps, cats or dogs) | 0.0a,x (0/18) | 5.6a,x (1/18) | 16.7a,x (3/18) | 0.0a,x (0/18) | 5.6a,x (1/18) | 23.5a,y (4/17) | 29.4a,y (5/17) | 31.3a,y (5/16) | ||
1In the fluralaner group dogs were treated once orally on day 0
2In the selamectin/sarolaner group cats and dogs were treated on day 0 and again between days 28–30 and between days 56–60
3Geometric mean numbers of fleas recovered in two intermittent light flea traps averaged within households
4{(Day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts – day x geometric mean animal area flea counts) / day 0 geometric mean animal area flea counts)} × 100
a,bGeometric mean trap flea counts in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (Day 21; P=0.032; │t│ = 2.18)
x,yGeometric mean trap flea counts in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; │t│ ≥ 5.57)
a,bPercent of flea- free traps in a column with like letter superscripts are not significantly different (P > 0.069; Fisher’s exact test).
x,yPercent of flea- free traps in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.020; Fisher’s exact test)
a,bPercent of flea- free homes in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.021; Fisher’s exact test)
x,yPercent of flea- free homes in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.046; Fisher’s exact test)
Owner assessment of pruritus using a visual analogue scale (PVAS) for cats in homes naturally infested with fleas before and after treatment with either a single topical dose of fluralaner or three consecutive topical treatments with selamectin
| Treatment group | Days post-treatment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28–30 | 40–45 | 56–60 | 82–86 | ||
| Fluralaner1 | # Cats | 31 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
| Mean PVAS Score3 | 5.9a,x | 2.6a,y | 1.9a,y | 1.1b,y | 1.2b,y | 1.0a,y | 1.1a,y | 0.9a,y | |
| SD | 2.31 | 1.93 | 1.61 | 1.40 | 1.70 | 1.32 | 1.71 | 0.96 | |
| Range | (1.1–10) | (0.0–8.2) | (0.0–5.2) | (0.0–5.0) | (0.0–6.3) | (0.0–5.1) | (0–6.7) | (0.0–2.7) | |
| % Reduction4 | 56.0 | 68.0 | 80.7 | 79.7 | 82.7 | 81.7 | 84.3 | ||
| Selamectin2 | # Cats | 29 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 28 | 26 | 27 | 26 |
| Mean PVAS Score3 | 6.6a,x | 3.1a,y | 2.7a,y | 2.9a,y | 2.6a,y | 1.3a,y | 1.6a,y | 1.6a,y | |
| SD | 2.58 | 1.09 | 2.12 | 2.40 | 2.31 | 1.46 | 1.92 | 2.12 | |
| Range | (0.3–10) | (1.0–5.1) | (0.0–8.0) | (0.2–8.8) | (0.0–9.3) | (0.0–4.7) | (0.0–7.5) | (0.0–6.7) | |
| % Reduction4 | 53.6 | 58.9 | 56.6 | 60.6 | 80.9 | 76.2 | 76.5 | ||
1In the fluralaner group cats were treated once topically on day 0 (Bravecto® Topical solution; Merck Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA)
2In the selamectin group cats were treated on day 0 and once between days 28–30 and 56–60 (Revolution®; Zoetis, Whippany, NJ, USA)
3Arithmetic mean pruritus scores as assessed by cat owners using a PVAS scoring sheet
4{(Day 0 arithmetic mean PVAS score – day x arithmetic mean PVAS score) / day 0 arithmetic mean PVAS score)} × 100
a,bArithmetic mean PVAS scores in a column with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.005; │t│ ≥ 2.882)
x,yArithmetic mean PVAS scores in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; │t│≥ 8.680)
Assessment of dermatologic lesions using a feline allergic dermatitis (SCORFAD) severity scale for cats naturally infested with fleas in homes in Florida and treated with either a single topical dose of fluralaner or three consecutive monthly doses of selamectin
| Treatment group | Days post-treatment | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 30 | 60 | 84 | ||
| Fluralaner1 | No. of cats | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
| Mean SCORFAD Score3 | 7.5a,x | 2.7a,y | 1.3a,y | 1.1a,y | |
| SD | 8.39 | 3.96 | 1.77 | 1.47 | |
| Range | (0–28) | (0–18) | (0–7) | (0–6) | |
| % Reduction4 | 63.6 | 82.8 | 85.3 | ||
| Selamectin2 | No. of cats | 29 | 29 | 27 | 26 |
| Mean SCORFAD Score3 | 7.7a,x | 5.6a,x | 3.2a,y | 3.4a,y | |
| SD | 10.34 | 8.85 | 4.73 | 3.90 | |
| Range | (0–50) | (0–35) | (0–21) | (0–13) | |
| % Reduction4 | 26.9 | 58.1 | 56.5 | ||
1In the fluralaner group cats were treated once topically on day 0 (Bravecto® Topical solution; Merck Animal Health, Madison, NJ, USA)
2In the selamectin group cats were treated on day 0 and once between days 28–30 and 56–60 (Revolution®; Zoetis, Whippany, NJ, USA)
3Arithmetic mean SCORFAD lesion score
4{(Day 0 arithmetic mean SCORFAD score – day x arithmetic mean SCORFAD score) / day 0 arithmetic mean SCORFAD score)} × 100
a,bArithmetic mean SCORFAD lesion scores in a column with like letter superscripts are not significantly different (P > 0.058; │t│ ≥ 0.21).
x,yArithmetic mean SCORFAD lesion scores in a row with unlike letter superscripts are significantly different from day 0 (P < 0.001; │t│≥ 3.35; day 30 Selamectin vs baseline P = 0.13; t = 1.53)