A comparison of three different methodologies for evaluating Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) rnicroplus susceptibility to topical spray compounds

This study aimed to compare three different methodologies (Adult Immersion Tests, field trials with naturally infected animals, and a Stall Test using artificially infested cattle) to evaluate the efficacy of two topical formulations that we administered as whole body sprays (15% Cypermethrin + 30% Chlorpyriphos + 15% Fenthion-Colosso (R) FC 30, Ouro Fino Agronegocios; and 60% Dichlorvos + 20% Chlorpyriphos-Ectofos (R), Vallee Saude Animal Ltd.), against a susceptible strain of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. To achieve this objective, two natural infestation trials were conducted, as well as two artificial infestation trials (Stall Tests) and two Adult Immersion Tests (AIT). The AIT results showed that both spray formulations achieved 100% efficacy against R. (B.) micro plus fully engorged females. However, when observing results obtained by field trials (natural infestations) and Stall Tests, none of these topically applied compounds reached 100% efficacy or affected the reproductive capacity of the fully engorged female ticks. Additional studies must be conducted to compare these in vivo methodologies with different in vitro techniques, such as the Larval Packet Test. However, based on results obtained here, we can conclude that depending on the spray formulations used, the AIT can overestimate acaricidal efficacy and values of reproductive efficiency of such compounds against R (B.) micro plus. Specifically, when dealing with spray formulations in the Stall Tests, the period of residual action can increase because these animals are sheltered from contact with environmental factors that might interfere with the efficacy of the products tested. It may be necessary to take in vivo trial results into consideration (such as field trials with naturally infested animals or Stall Tests) to standardize a specific in vitro assay, such as the Adult Immersion Test. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Anthelmintic efficacy of ivermectin and abamectin, administered orally for seven consecutive days (100 mu g/kg/day), against nematodes in naturally infected pigs

The present study aimed to evaluate ivermectin and abamectin, both administered orally in naturally infected domestic swine, as well as analysing if the EPG (eggs per gram of faeces) values were equivalent with the ivermectin and abamectin efficacy obtained by 'parasitological necropsies. The animals were randomly selected based on the average of three consecutive EPG counts of Strongylida, Ascaris suum and Trichuris for experiment I, and of Strongylida and Trichuris for experiment II. After the random draw, eight animals were treated, orally, during seven consecutive days with 100 mu g/kg/day ivermectin (Ivermectina (R) premix, Ouro Fino Agronegocios), eight other animals were treated, orally, during seven consecutive days with 100 mu g/kg/clay abamectin (Virbamax (R) premix - Virbac do Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.), and eight pigs were kept as controls. EPG counts were performed for each individual animal at 14th day post-treatment (DPT). All animals (control and treatment) were necropsied at the 14th DPT. The results from both experiments demonstrate that both ivermectin and abamectin, administered orally for a continuous period of seven days, at a daily dosage of 100 mu g/kg, were highly effective (>95%) against Hyostrongylus rubidus, Strongyloides ransomi, Ascaris suum and Metastrongylus salmi. Against Oesophagostomum dentatum, abamectin presented over 95% efficacy against both evaluated strains, while ivermectin reached other strain as resistant. Regarding T. suis, both ivermectin and abamectin were effective (efficacies >90%) against one of the tested strains, while the other one was classified as resistant. Furthermore, the EPG values were equivalent with the ivermectin and abamectin efficacy obtained by parasitological necropsies. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.