Parasitology Research

, Volume 114, Issue 7, pp 2415–2426 | Cite as

The main factors influencing canine demodicosis treatment outcome and determination of optimal therapy

  • Milica Arsenović
  • Lato Pezo
  • Nebojša Vasić
  • Rodoljub Ćirić
  • Milan Stefanović


The main idea of this research was to evaluate the efficacy of canine demodicosis conventional treatments using mathematical analyses. All available papers published between 1980 and 2014 were used in this study. One hundred six clinical trials enrolling 3414 cases of generalized demodicosis in dogs are studied. Dogs entered in the analysis were only the ones in which the disease occurred naturally, excluding the studies in which transplantation of Demodex canis mites was done from other animals. In conventional acaricide treatments, sorted according to active substances (moxidectin, amitraz, doramectin, ivermectin, and milbemycin oxime), the way of application (spot-on, dips, orally, or subcutaneous), concentration, and interval of application were used as input parameters in mathematical modeling. Data of interest were the treatment outcome, the number of dogs that went into remission, the number of animals not responding to treatment microscopically, the average duration of therapy, the follow-up period, the number of patients with disease recurrence, the number of adverse effects, and the number of animals with side effects. Dogs lost to follow-up or when the treatment was discontinued, due to various reasons not in connection with the therapy protocol, were not considered. Statistical and mathematical analyses were applied for prediction of the drugs’ effectiveness. Developed mathematical models showed satisfactorily r 2, higher than 0.87. Good evidence for recommending the use of milbemycin oxime PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily) and moxidectin spot-on (Advocate®, Bayer) weekly is found. A bit less effective therapies were based on ivermectin PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily), moxidectin PO (0.35 mg/kg, daily), and amitraz dips (0.05 % solution, weekly), respectively. It is important to keep in mind that Advocate® is recommended by the manufacturer for use in milder cases.


Demodex canis Therapy efficacy Mathematical modeling Optimization 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268:240–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenović M, Pezo L, Stanković S et al (2013a) Sensitivity analysis of mathematical models for final product properties: link to DTG curve. Ceram Int 39:6277–6285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arsenović M, Stanković S, Radojević Z, Pezo L (2013b) Prediction and fuzzy synthetic optimization of process parameters in heavy clay brick production. Ceram Int 39:2013–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basano FS, Kramer L, Gilallicchio B, Genchi C (1999) Impiego della milbemicina ossima nel trattamento della rogna demodettica generalizzata del cane. Veterinaria 13(1):89–93Google Scholar
  5. Bastianoni S, Pulselli FM, Focardi S, Tiezzi EBP, Gramatica P (2008) Correlations and complementarities in data and methods through principal components analysis (PCA) applied to the results of the SPIn-Eco Project. J Environ Manag 86(2):419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensignor E, Carlotti D (1998) Moxidectine in the treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs. A pilot study: 8 cases. In: Kwochka KW, Willemse T, Von Tscharner C (eds) Advances in Veterinary Dermatology. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 554–555Google Scholar
  7. Box GEP, Behnken DW (1960) Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics 2:455–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brlek T, Pezo L, Voća N, Krička T, Vukmirović Đ, Čolović R, Bodroža-Solarov M (2013) Chemometric approach for assessing the quality of olive cake pellets. Fuel Process Technol 116:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrows A (1997) Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of two different doses of moxidectin in the treatment of generalized demodicosis in the dog. In: Proceedings of the Science Meeting of the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists Sydney. American Academy of Veterinary Dermatology/American College of Veterinary Dermatology, Sydney, 1997Google Scholar
  10. Carlotti DN, Bourdeau P, Guaguere E, et al (1998) Therapy of generalized demodicosis with variable oral doses of milbemycin oxime in 88 dogs. In: Kwochka KW, Willemse T, Von Tscharner C (eds), Advances in Veterinary Dermatology. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 554–555Google Scholar
  11. Chen C (1995) A short-tailed demodectic mite and Demodex canis infestation in a Chihuahua dog. Vet Dermatol 6:227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das SS (1993) Efficacy of Pestoban aerosol spray in treatment of canine demodicosis. J Vet Parasitol 7:67–69Google Scholar
  13. Delayte EH, Otsuka M, Larsson CE, Castro RCC (2006) Eficácia das lactonas macrocíclicas sistêmicas (ivermectina e moxidectina) na terapia da demodicidose canina generalizada. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 58(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer H, Seawright AA (1980) The use of amitraz (N1-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N-[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino)-methyl]-N-methylmethanimidamide) in demodecosis in dogs. Aust Vet J 56:537–541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Figueiredo C, Viana JA, Curi PR (1993) Clinical evaluation of the effect of vitamin E in the treatment of generalized canine demodicosis. In: Ihrke PJ, Mason IS, White SD (eds) Advances in Veterinary Dermatology. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 247–261Google Scholar
  16. Fisher MA, Shanks DJ (2008) A review of the off-label use of selamectin (Stronghold®/Revolution®) in dogs and cats. Acta Vet Scand 50:46–50PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folz SD, Kakuk TJ, Henke CL, Rector DL, Tesar FB (1984a) Clinical evaluation of amitraz as a treatment for canine demodicosis. Vet Parasitol 16:335–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Folz SD, Kratzer DD, Nowakowaki LH, Conklin RD Jr., Rector DL (1984/85) Evaluation of a topical treatment, alone and in combination with a detergent, for generalized demodicosis. Vet Parasitol 17:165–172Google Scholar
  19. Fondati A (1996) Efficacy of daily oral ivermectin in the treatment of 10 cases of generalized demodicosis in adult dogs. Vet Dermatol 7:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fourie LJ, Kok DJ, Du Plessis A, Rugg D (2007) Efficacy of a novel formulation of metaflumizone plus amitraz for the treatment of demodectic mange in dogs. Vet Parasitol 150:268–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fourie JJ, Delport PC, Fourie LJ, Heine J, Horak IG, Krieger KJ (2009) Comparative efficacy and safety of two treatment regimens with a topically applied combination of imidacloprid and moxidectin (Advocate®) against generalised demodicosis in dogs. Parasitol Res 105:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fourie J, Dumont P, Halos L, Beugnet F, Pollmeier M (2013) Efficacy of a topical application of Certifect® (fipronil 6.26 % w/v, amitraz 7.48 % w/v, (S)-methoprene 5.63 % w/v) for the treatment of canine generalized demodicosis. Parasite. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2013046 Google Scholar
  23. Franc M, Soubeyroux H (1986) Le traitement de la démodécie du chien par un collier a 9% d’amitraz. Rev Med Vet 137:583–586Google Scholar
  24. Fukahori FLP (2013) Eficácia do uso de moxidectina por via oral no tratamento de demodicose generalizada em cães: breve relato de dois casos. Med Vet 7(1):31–34Google Scholar
  25. Garfield RA, Reedy LM (1992) The use of oral milbemycin oxime (Interceptor) in the treatment of chronic generalized canine demodicosis. Vet Dermatol 3:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Genchi C, Genchi M, Petry G (2013) Evaluation of the efficacy of imidacloprid 10 %/moxidectin 2.5 % (Advocate®, Advantage® Multi, Bayer) for the prevention of Dirofilaria repens infection in dogs. Parasitol Res 112:S81–S89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guaguere E (1996) Traitement de la démodécie généralisés du chien par l’ivermectine: a propos de 20 cas. Prat Med Chir Anim Comp 31:33–40Google Scholar
  28. Guaguere E (1998) Efficacy of daily oral ivermectin treatment in 38 dogs with generalized demodicosis: a study of relapse rates. In: Kwochka KW, Willemse T, Von Tscharner C (eds) Advances in Veterinary Dermatology. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 453–454Google Scholar
  29. Hamann F, Wedell H, Bauer J (1997) Zur Demodikose des Hundes. Kleintierpraxis 42:745–754Google Scholar
  30. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25:3443–3457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heine J, Krieger K, Dumont P, Hellmann K (2005) Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of imidacloprid 10 % plus moxidectin 2.5 % spot-on in the treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs: results of a European field study. Parasitol Res 97:S89–S96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hellmann K, Heine J, Braun G, Paran-Dobesova R, Svobodova V (2011) Evaluation of the therapeutic and preventive efficacy of 2.5 % moxidectin/10 % imidacloprid (Advocate®, Bayer Animal Health) in dogs naturally infected or at risk of natural infection by Dirofilaria repens. Parasitol Res 109(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hillier A, Desch CE (2002) Large-bodied Demodex mite infestation in 4 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 220:623–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hogben D (1968) The distribution of the sample correlation coefficient with one variable fixed. J Res Nat Bur Stand, Sect B 72B(1), available online
  35. Holm B (1998) Clinical efficacy of milbemycin oxime in the treatment of canine generalized demodicosis in the dog. A retrospective study of 40 cases (1993–1995). In: Kwochka KW, Willemse T, Von Tscharner C (eds) dvances in Veterinary Dermatology. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 582–583Google Scholar
  36. Holm BR (2003) Efficacy of milbemycin oxime in the treatment of canine generalized demodicosis: a retrospective study of 99 dogs (1995–2000). Vet Dermatol 14:189–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang HP, Lien YH (2013) Treatment of canine generalized demodicosis associated with hyperadrenocorticism with spot-on moxidectin and imidacloprid. Acta Vet Scand 55:40PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hugnet C, Bruchon-Hugnet C, Royer H, Bourdoiseau G (2001) Efficacy of 1.25 % amitraz solution in the treatment of generalized demodicosis (eight cases) and sarcoptic mange (five cases) in dogs. Vet Dermatol 12:89–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnstone IP (2002) Doramectin as a treatment for canine and feline demodicosis. Aust Vet Pract 32:98–103Google Scholar
  40. Kamboj DS, Singh KB, Singh A, Mohan R, Nauriyal DC (1993) Studies on the therapeutic efficacy of amitraz, deltamethrin and ivermectin on canine demodicosis. Indian Vet J 70:61–64Google Scholar
  41. Karakumi MC, Ural K, Cingi CC, Guzel M, Haydardedeoglu AE, Borku MK (2007) Evaluation of ivermectin tablets in the treatment of generalized canine demodicosis. Rev Méd Vét 158(7):380–383Google Scholar
  42. Katoch R, Yadav A, Vohra S, Khajuria JK (nd) Recent trends in herbal ectoparasitical drugs. Winter school lecture, available online:
  43. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med 96(3):118–121PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kleijnen JPC (2008) Design and analysis of simulation experiments, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuznetsova E, Bettenay S, Nikolaeva L, Majzoub M, Mueller R (2012) Influence of systemic antibiotics on the treatment of dogs with generalized demodicosis. Vet Parasitol 188:148–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee H-H, Terada M (1992) In vitro effects of milbemysin oxime: mechanism of action against Angiostrongylus cantonensis and Dirofilaria immitis. Parasitol Res 78:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Medleau L, Willemse T (1995a) Efficacy of daily amitraz therapy for refractory, generalized demodicosis in dogs: two independent studies. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 31:246–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Medleau L, Willemse T (1995b) Efficacy of daily amitraz on generalised demodicosis in dogs. J Small Anim Pract 36(1):3–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medleau L, Ristić Z, Mcelveen DR (1996) Daily ivermectin for treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs. Vet Dermatol 7:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyer D (2008) Therapie der caninen generalisierten demodikose mit einem moxidectin-imidacloprid- spot-on (Advocate®, Bayer), Inaugural-Dissertation, Tierärztlichen fakultät der ludwig-maximilians-universität München,
  51. Miller WH Jr, Scott DW, Wellington JR, Panić R (1993) Clinical efficacy of milbemycin oxime in the treatment of generalized demodicosis in adult dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 203(10):1426–1429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller WH Jr, Scott DW, Cayatte SM, Buerger RG, Bagladi MS (1995) Clinical efficacy of increased dosages of milbemycin oxime for treatment of generalized demodicosis in adult dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 207(12):1581–1584PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Mueller RS (2004) Treatment protocols for demodicosis: an evidence-based review. Vet Dermatol 15:75–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mueller RS (2011) Evidence-based treatment of canine demodicosis. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 39(6):419–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mueller RS, Bettenay SV (1995) Milbemycin oxime in the treatment of canine demodicosis. Aust Vet Pract 25:122–126Google Scholar
  56. Mueller RS, Hastie K, Bettenay SV (1999) Daily oral ivermectin for the treatment of generalised demodicosis in 23 dogs. Aust Vet Pract 29:132–136Google Scholar
  57. Mueller RS, Meyer D, Bensignor E, Sauter-Louis C (2009) Treatment of canine generalized demodicosis with a ‘spot-on’ formulation containing 10 % moxidectin and 2.5 % imidacloprid (Advocate®, Bayer Healthcare). Vet Dermatol 20:441–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Muller GH (1983) Amitraz treatment of demodicosis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 19:435–441Google Scholar
  59. Murayama N, Shibata K, Nagata M (2010) Efficacy of weekly oral doramectin treatment in canine demodicosis. Vet Rec 167:63–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nourani V, Fard MS (2012) Sensitivity analysis of the artificial neural network outputs in simulation of the evaporation process at different climatologic regimes. Adv Eng Softw 47:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Otto M (1999) Chemometrics statistics and computer application in analytical chemistry. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  62. Paradis M (1999) New approaches to the treatment of canine demodicosis. Vet Clin N Am Small 29(6):1425–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paradis M, Laperriere E (1992) Efficacy of daily ivermectin treatment in a dog with amitraz-resistant, generalized demodicosis. Vet Dermatol 3(2):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paradis M, Pag N (1998) Topical (pour-on) ivermectin in the treatment of chronic generalized demodicosis in dogs. Vet Dermatol 9:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paradis M, Ristic Z (1993) Efficacy of daily ivermectin in dogs with generalized demodicosis. In: Proceedings of the 10th ESVD (European Society of Veterinary Dermatology) annual congress. Aalborg, Denmark, Published by European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, pp 59–60Google Scholar
  66. Paterson TE, Halliwell RE, Fields PJ, Louw ML, Louw JP, Ball GS, Pinckney RD, McKibben JS (2009) Treatment of canine-generalized demodicosis: a blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of Advocate® R (Bayer Animal Health) with ivermectin. Vet Dermatol 20:447–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paul AJ, Tranquilli WJ, Seward R et al (1987) Clinical observations in Collies given ivermectin orally. Am J Vet Res 48:684–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pekmezci D, Pekmezci GZ, Guzel M, Cenesiz S, Gurler AT, Gokalp G (2014) Efficacy of amitraz plus inactivated parapoxvirus ovis in the treatment of canine generalized demodicosis. Vet Rec 174:556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prior RL, Wu X, Schaich K (2005) Standardized methods for the determination of antioxidant capacity and phenolics in foods and dietary supplements. J Agric Food Chem 53(10):4290–4302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ristic Z, Medleau L, Paradis M, White-Weithers NE (1995) Ivermectin for treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 207(10):1308–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Roy S, Ghosh RC, Sen SK (1992) Therapeutic evaluation of amitraz against canine demodicosis. Indian Vet J 69:750–751Google Scholar
  72. Saridomichelakis M, Koutinas A, Papadogiannakis E, Papazachariadou M, Liapi M, Trakas D (1999) Adult-onset demodicosis in two dogs due to Demodex canis and a short-tailed demodectic mite. J Small Anim Pract 40:529–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott DW, Walton DK (1985) Experiences with the use of amitraz and ivermectin for the treatment of generalized demodicosis in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 21:535–541Google Scholar
  74. Singh SK, Kumar M, Jadhav RK, Saxena SK (2011) An update on therapeutic management of canine demodicosis. Vet World 4(1):41–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sushma C, Khahra SS, Nauriyal DC et al (2001) Efficacy of ivermectin and moxidectin in treatment of ectoparasitic infestation in dogs. Indian J Vet Med 21:91–92Google Scholar
  76. Tapp T, Muse R, Rosenkrantz WS (1998) Efficacy of alternate day oral ivermectin in the treatment of generalized demodicosis. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Veterinary Dermatology/American College Of Veterinary Dermatology San Antonio. Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, Sydney, p 25Google Scholar
  77. Tarallo VD, Lia RP, Sasanelli M, Cafarchia C, Otranto D (2009) Efficacy of amitraz plus metaflumizone for the treatment of canine demodicosis associated with malassezia pachydermatis. Parasite Vector 2:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Turanzi T, Tomlin AS (2014) Analysis of Kinetics Reaction Mechanisms, Springer/Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  79. Unsworth K (1946) Studies on the clinical and parasitological aspects of canine demodectic mange. J Comp Pathol 56:114–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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 93:149–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Živičnjak T (2005) A retrospective evaluation of efficiency in therapy for generalized canine demodicosis. Vet Arhiv 75(4):303–310Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milica Arsenović
    • 1
  • Lato Pezo
    • 2
  • Nebojša Vasić
    • 3
  • Rodoljub Ćirić
    • 3
  • Milan Stefanović
    • 4
  1. 1.IMS InstituteBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Institute of General and Physical ChemistryUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Veterinary Clinic SpinaBelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Noble Veterinary ClinicDubaiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations