Application of 10%imidacloprid/50%permethrin to prevent Ehrlichia canis exposure in dogs under natural conditions

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Domenico Otranto ; Paola Paradies ; Gabriella Testini ; Maria Stefania Latrofa ; Stefania Weigl ; Cinzia Cantacessi ; Norbert Mencke ; Donato de Caprariis ; Antonio Parisi ; Gioia Capelli ; Dorothee Stanneck
• 关键词：Ehrlichia canis ; Anaplasma platys ; Tick-borne diseases ; Rhipicephalus sanguineus ; Imidacloprid ; Permethrin ; Efficacy ; Field trial
• 刊名：Veterinary Parasitology
• 出版年：2008
• 期刊代码：107_03044017
• 类别：abs
• 出版时间：31 May 2008
• 卷：153
• 期：3-4
• 页码：320-328
• 文件大小：162 K

摘要

Canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (CME) caused by Ehrlichia canis is the most known canine tick-borne disease (TBD) spread throughout the world. Preventing tick bites is a priority to reduce the risk of TBDs and it was the aim of the present study to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of imidacloprid 10%and permethrin 50%(ImPer) (Advantix^®; Bayer AG, Germany) in a spot-on formulation to control CME under field conditions. On January–March 2005, 845 dogs from two kennels in southern Italy (kennels of Bari (KB)- and Ginosa (KG)), with a history of tick infestation were initially tested by serology and PCR assay for E. canis infection. Data on Leishmania infantum infection were also available from a previous study carried out on the same dog population. One hundred twenty-six dogs (14.9%) presented anti-E. canis antibodies with a relative prevalence of 15.6%(n = 65 dogs in KB) and 14.2%(n = 61 dogs in KG). Five hundred thirty-five animals found negative both for E. canis and L. infantum infections were enrolled in three groups (Group A—treated with ImPer once a month; Group B—treated every 2 weeks; and Group C—untreated control animals) and monitored for E. canis infection by serology and PCR in November 2005 (first follow-up) and in March 2006 (second follow-up). The E. canis infection was serologically revealed, at the first and/or second follow-up, in 26 animals from Group C in KB and KG (mean incidence density rate (IDR), 13.24%) while in none of the animals from Group A (KB and KG) and only in one animal from Group B (IDR 1.13%) in KG. The final protection efficacy of ImPer ranged from 95.57%to 100%in Groups B and A. At PCR only 15 dogs from KG were positive for Rickettsiales only at the first follow-up and at the sequence analysis two (both in Group C) revealed 100%homology with E. canis sequences while 13 with Anaplasma platys. Four out of 13 A. platys PCR-positive dogs were also seropositive for E. canis at one or both follow-ups. ImPer, by virtue of its repellent and acaricidal activity against ticks, has been shown to be efficacious to prevent E. canis infection in treated dogs living under natural conditions in endemic areas.