The synergistic action of imidacloprid and flumethrin and their release kinetics from collars applied for ectoparasite control in dogs and cats

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The control of tick and flea burdens in dogs and cats has become essential to the control of important and emerging vector borne diseases, some of which are zoonoses. Flea worry and flea bite hypersensitivity are additionally a significant disease entity in dogs and cats. Owner compliance in maintaining the pressure of control measures has been shown to be poor. For these reasons efforts are continuously being made to develop ectoparasiticides and application methods that are safe, effective and easy to apply for pet owners. A new polymer matrix collar has recently been developed which is registered for 8 months use in cats and dogs. The basic properties of this collar have been investigated in several <it>in vitro </it>and <it>in vivo </it>studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The effects of imidacloprid, flumethrin and the combination were evaluated in vitro by means of whole cell voltage clamp measurement experiments conducted on isolated neuron cells from <it>Spodoptera frugiperda</it>. The in vitro efficacy of the two compounds and the combination against three species of ticks and their life stages and fleas were evaluated in a dry surface glass vial assay. The kinetics of the compounds over time in the collar were evaluated by the change in mass of the collar and measurement of the surface concentrations and concentrations of the actives in the collar matrix by HPLC. Hair clipped from collar treated dogs and cats, collected at various time points, was used to assess the acaricidal efficacy of the actives ex vivo.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An <it>in vitro </it>isolated insect nerve model demonstrated the synergistic neurotoxic effects of the pyrethroid flumethrin and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. An <it>in vitro </it>glass vial efficacy and mortality study against various life stages of the ticks <it>Ixodes ricinus, Rhipicephalus sanguineus </it>and <it>Dermacentor reticulatus </it>and against the flea (<it>Ctenocephalides felis</it>) demonstrated that the combination of these products was highly effective against these parasites. The release kinetics of these actives from a neck collar (compounded with 10% imidacloprid and 4.5% flumethrin) was extensively studied in dogs and cats under laboratory and field conditions. Acaricidal concentrations of the actives were found to be consistently released from the collar matrix for 8 months. None of the collar studies in dogs or cats were associated with any significant collar related adverse event.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Here we demonstrated the synergism between the pyrethroid flumethrin and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, both provided in therapeutically relevant doses by a slow release collar matrix system over 8 months. This collar is therefore a convenient and safe tool for a long-term protection against ectoparasites.</p

Diagnostic challenges of early Lyme disease: Lessons from a community case series

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lyme disease, the most common vector-borne infection in North America, is increasingly reported. When the characteristic rash, erythema migrans, is not recognized and treated, delayed manifestations of disseminated infection may occur. The accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of early Lyme disease in the community is unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective, consecutive case series of 165 patients presenting for possible early Lyme disease between August 1, 2002 and August 1, 2007 to a community-based Lyme referral practice in Maryland. All patients had acute symptoms of less than or equal to 12 weeks duration. Patients were categorized according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria and data were collected on presenting history, physical findings, laboratory serology, prior diagnoses and prior treatments.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The majority (61%) of patients in this case series were diagnosed with early Lyme disease. Of those diagnosed with early Lyme disease, 13% did not present with erythema migrans; of those not presenting with a rash, 54% had been previously misdiagnosed. Among those with a rash, the diagnosis of erythema migrans was initially missed in 23% of patients whose rash was subsequently confirmed. Of all patients previously misdiagnosed, 41% had received initial antibiotics likely to be ineffective against Lyme disease.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>For community physicians practicing in high-risk geographic areas, the diagnosis of Lyme disease remains a challenge. Failure to recognize erythema migrans or alternatively, viral-like presentations without a rash, can lead to missed or delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease, ineffective antibiotic treatment, and the potential for late manifestations.</p

Gastrointestinal decontamination in the acutely poisoned patient

ObjectiveTo define the role of gastrointestinal (GI) decontamination of the poisoned patient.Data sourcesA computer-based PubMed/MEDLINE search of the literature on GI decontamination in the poisoned patient with cross referencing of sources.Study selection and data extractionClinical, animal and in vitro studies were reviewed for clinical relevance to GI decontamination of the poisoned patient.Data synthesisThe literature suggests that previously, widely used, aggressive approaches including the use of ipecac syrup, gastric lavage, and cathartics are now rarely recommended. Whole bowel irrigation is still often recommended for slow-release drugs, metals, and patients who "pack" or "stuff" foreign bodies filled with drugs of abuse, but with little quality data to support it. Activated charcoal (AC), single or multiple doses, was also a previous mainstay of GI decontamination, but the utility of AC is now recognized to be limited and more time dependent than previously practiced. These recommendations have resulted in several treatment guidelines that are mostly based on retrospective analysis, animal studies or small case series, and rarely based on randomized clinical trials.ConclusionsThe current literature supports limited use of GI decontamination of the poisoned patient