Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Two Treatment Regimens with a Topically Applied Combination of Imidacloprid and Moxidectin (Advocate®) against Generalised Demodicosis in Dogs
- 336 Downloads
This laboratory study compared the efficacy of two treatment regimens using an imidacloprid (10 %) /moxidectin (2.5 %) topical formulation (Advocate®, Bayer) on dogs with generalised demodicosis. Sixteen dogs were randomly allocated to two equal groups. One group was treated at 28-day intervals for 12 weeks and the second group at weekly intervals for 15 weeks. Mite numbers were estimated and demodectic lesions were evaluated on each dog before treatment and at approximately 28-day intervals thereafter. Consistently greater reduction in mite numbers was recorded for the weekly treatment regimen. Dogs treated at weekly intervals exhibited markedly fewer clinical signs and greater hair regrowth and weight gain than those treated at 28-day intervals. To assess the safety of a weekly treatment interval in dogs, a study was done in which the investigational compound was administered at weekly intervals at five times the recommended dose for a period of 16 consecutive weeks. Apart from transient erythema at the site of administration in one dog and scaliness of the skin in another, no clinical signs of toxicity could be observed. Assessment of 27 blood parameters indicated that only basophils were outside the reference values on days +13 and +69, during the safety trial period.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Carter GR (2001) External parasitic diseases of dogs and cats. In: A concise guide to infectious deseases of dogs and cats (Ed: Carter GR), International Veterinary Information Service, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
- Fourie LJ, Heine J (2005) Evaluation of the efficacy of Advocate® (moxidectin 2.5 % and imidacloprid 10 %) spot-on against Demodex spp. mites on dogs with generalised demodicosis. Proc. 6th Int. Ectoparasite Control Symp., BSVA Congress, April 6, 2005, Birmingham, UK, published by UK-Vet Publications, pp. 32–36.Google Scholar
- Heine J, Krieger K, Fourie L, Dumont P, Radelof I (2005) Imidacloprid 10 % and moxidectin 2.5 % spot-on (Advocate®) for treatment of demodicosis in dogs. 8th International Symposium on Ectoparasites of Pets, May 8–11, 2005, Hannover, GermanGoogle Scholar
- Howell CJ, Walker J, Nevill EM (1978) Ticks, mites and insects infesting domestic animals in South Africa. Part 1. Descriptions and biology. Department of Agricultural Technical Services, Republic of South Africa, Science Bulletin, No. 393.Google Scholar
- Kwochka KW, Kunkle GA, Foil CO (1985) The efficacy of amitraz for generalized demodicosis in dogs: A study of two concentrations and frequencies of application. Comp Cont Educ Pract Vet 7:8–17Google Scholar
- Medleau L, Ristic Z (1994) Treating chronic refractory demodicosis in dogs. Vet Med 89:775–777Google Scholar
- Soulsby EJL (1982) Helminths, arthropods and protozoa of domesticated animals. Baillière Tindall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Wagner R, Wendlberger U (2000) Field efficacy of moxidectin in dogs and rabbits naturally infested with Sarcoptes spp., Demodex spp. and Psoroptes spp. mites. Vet. Parasitol 93:149–158Google Scholar
- Zumpt F (1961) The arthropod parasites of vertebrates in Africa South of the Sahara (Etiopian region). Vol. I Chelicerata. South African Institute of Medical Research, Johannesburg.Google Scholar