A deworming field trial with ivermectin (MSD) in reindeer

This paper is to be regarded as a follow-up under field conditions of Nordkvist et al. (1983) as far as ivermectin is concerned. 54 reindeer calves (29 males + 25 females), as far as possible of normal size, were selected November 15th, 1982 from a reindeer herd belonging to Maskaure sameby, Arvidsjaur. The calves were individually branded, by means of ear tags and weighed. 29 calves (15 males + 14 females) were treated with ivermectin (Ivomec 1% MSD) at a dose rate of 1 ml per calf (roughly corresponding to 200 meg ivermectin per kg body weight), subcutaneous injection. Remaining 25 calves (14 males + 11 females) served as untreated controls. The entire group of calves was then returned to the herd for free grazing during winter. During the winter 3 treated calves were found dead, all three of them had been suffering from keratoconjunctivitis. If any of the control animals had succumbed during the same time is not known. On April 21st, 1983 (approx. 150 days post treatment) 44 calves (24 treated + 20 controls) were weighed. 5 treated and 5 controls were randomly selected for slaughter. Carcasses and organs were thoroughly examined from a parasitological and, as far as lungs were concerned, pathological point of view. The efficacy of the treatment was 100(M> or nearly 100% against Oedemagena tarandi, Cephenemyia trompe, Dictyocaulus viviparus, Elaphostrongylus rangiferi, and nematode eggs in faeces. The efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes was, probably due to date of treatment, somewhat difficult to judge (Tab 1). A statistical analysis of the weight changes, relative to initial weights, (Tab. 2) supports the statements — that all animals had lost weight — that treated males had lost significantly less of their body weights than control males — That weight change of treated females did not differ significantly from that of control females — that the average weight loss of the entire treated group was significantly less than that of the control group.Ett fältavmaskningsförsök med ivermectin (MSD) på renar.Abstract in Swedish / Sammanfattning: 54 renkalvar (29 m + 25 f) såvitt mojligt av normal storlek, utvaldes den 25 november 1982 ur en renhjord tillhorig Maskaure sameby, Arjeplog. Kalvarna mdividmårktes med oronknappar och vågdes. Av dessa behandlades 29 kalvar (15 0*0" + 14 $9) med ivermectin (Ivomec, 1% MSD), 1 ml per kalv, subkutan injektion. Resterande 25 kalvar fungerade som obehandlade kontrolldjur. Den 21 april 1983 (efter 147 dagar) vågdes ånyo 44 (24 behandlade + 20 kontroller) av de ursprungliga djuren. 5 renar i vardera gruppen slaktades och kropp och organ undersoktes parasitologiskt. Effekten av behandlingen var 100% eller nåstintill mot Oedemagena tarandi, Cephenemyia trompe, Dictyocaulus viviparus, Elaphostrongulus rangiferi samt vad gällde forekomsten av nematodågg i tracken. Effekten på mag-tarmnematoder var, med hånsyn till behandlingstidpunkten, svårbedomd. Effekten på trichostrongylida lopmagsmaskar var också svårbedomd och diskuteras i texten. Den relativa forandringen av renarnas kroppsvikt, dvs forandringen i forhållande till ursprungsvikten, har beråknats och statistiskt bearbetats. Det kunde då konstateras — att samtliga renar hade forlorat i vikt — att den genomsnittliga viktforlusten hos de behandlade hankalvarna var signifikant lågre ån hos de obehandlade hankalvarna — att den genomsnittliga viktforlusten hos de behandlade honkalvarna ime skiljde sig statistiskt från viktforlusten hos de obehandlade honkalvarna — att den genomsnittliga viktforlusten i hela den behandlade gruppen var signifikant lagre ån i den obehandlade gruppen.Kenttätutkimus porojen matokuurista Ivermectinillä (MSD).Abstract in Finnish / Yhteenveto: Arjeplogissa Maskauren lappalaiskylåån kuuluvasta porotokasta valittiin 25. marraskuuta 1982 54 porovasaa (29 m + 25 f) mikåli mahdollista normaalikokoa. Vasat yksilomerkittiin korvanastoilla ja punnittiin. Nåistå kåsiteltiin 29 vasaa (15 m + 14 f) ivermectinillå (Ivomec, 1 % MSD), 1 ml vasaa kohden, ruiskutcttuna nahan alle. Loput 25 vasaa toimivat kåsittelemåttominå tarkkailuelåiminå. 21 huhtikuuta 1983 (147 påivån jålkeen) punnittiin uudelleen 44 (24 kåsiteltyå + 20 tarkkailuelåintå) alkuperåisistå elåimistå. Joka ryhmåstå teurastettiin 5 poroa ja ruho ja sisåelimet tutkittiin parasitoloogisesti. Kåsittelyn vaikutus oli 100% tai låhes tåydellinen seuraavia kohtaan: Oedemagena tarandi, Cephenemyia trompe, Dictyocaulus viviparus, Elapohostrongylus rangiferi sekå myoskin mitå tulee matojen munien esiintymiseen sonnassa. Vaikutus maha - ja suolistomatoihin oli, kåsittelyn ajankohdan huomioonottaen, vaikeasti ratkaistavissa. Vaikutus juoksutusmahoihin (trichostrongylida) oli myos vaikeasti ratkaistavissa ja siitå keskustellaan tekstisså. Porojen ruhojen painon suhteellinen muutos, t.s. muutos suhteessa alkuperåispainoon on arvioitu ja tilastollisesti kåsitelty. Voitiin silloin todeta — ettå kaikki porot olivat kevcntyneet painossaan, — ettå kåsiteltyjen urosvasojen keskimååråinen painonvåhennys oli merkitsevåsti alhaisempi kuin kåsittelemåttomien urosvasojen, — ettå kåsiteltyjen naarasvasoien keskimååråinen painonvåhennys ei eronnut tilastollistesti kåsittelemåttomien naarasvasojen painonvåhennyksestå, — ettå koko kåsitellyn ryhmån keskimååråinen painonvåhennys oli merkitsevåsti alhaisempi kuin kåsittelemåttomåsså ryhmåsså

A comparative study on the efficacy of four anthelmintics on some important reindeer parasites

Four anthelmintic preparations were tested against some of the most important parasites of reindeer, i.e. warble fly (Oedemagena tarandi), nostril fly (Cephenemyia trompe), brainworm (Elaphostrongylus rangiferi), and lungworm (Dictyocaulus viviparus). Their efficacy against intestinal nematodes was also registered. Test drugs were Fenthion (Bayer), Fenbendazole (Hoechst), Mebendazole (Janssen), and Ivermectin (Merk Sharp & Dohme). Against O. tarandi and C. trompe Ivermectin was 100% effective and Fenthion 86 and 100% respectively. The efficacy of Fen- and Mebendazole against these parasites was not significant. Against E. rangiferi the benzimidazole compounds were highly effective, with Mebendazole a bit ahead. Ivermectin had a moderate effect and Fenthion had no effect on this parasite. Against D. viviparus Fenbendazole, Mebendazole and Ivermectin were of equal, moderate-high effectiveness. No drug had a complete effect on the «arrested» larvae of D. viviparus. Fenthion had no effect at all. Fenbendazole and Ivermectin were both 100% effective against intestinal nematodes. Mebendazole was less effective and Fenthion had no effects. Ivermectin is considered to be the overall most effective anthelmintic in this test.En jamforande studie av effekten av fyra anthelmintika mot några betydelsesfulla parasiter hos ren.Abstract in Swedish / Sammandrag: Fyra antiparasitmedel har prôvats mot några av renens viktigaste parasiter, nàmligen hudkorm (Oedemagena tarandi), svalgkorm (Cephenemyia trompe), hjårnmask (Elaphostrongylus rangiferi) och lungmask (Dictyocaulus viviparus). Vidare har medlens effekt på mag- tarmnematoder (Trichostongylider) också noterats. De prôvade medicinerna var Fenthion (Bayer), Mebendazole (Leo/Janssen), Fenbendazole (Hoechst) och Ivermectin (Merck Sharp & Dohme). Mot hud- och svalgkorm var Ivermectin 100% effektivt medan for Fenthion effekten var 86 resp 100%. Effekten av Fen- och Mebendazole mot de båda parasiterna var inte signifikant. Mot hjårnmask noterades mycket hôg effekt av Mebendazole och aven Fenbendazole medan Ivermectin hade något såmre effekt med den valda doseringen. Fenthion hade ingen effekt på denna parasit. Mot lungmask visade Fenbendazole och Ivermectin god effekt medan Mebendazole visade något lagre effekt. Inget av preparaten hade dock fullgod verkan på de vilande inaktiva 5:te stadiets larverna av denna parasit. Fenthion hade ingen effekt. Mot mag-tarmnematoder var Fenbendazole och Ivermectin 100% effektiva medan Mebendazole hade en något làgre, delvis undertryckande effekt. Fenthion hade ingen effekt. Ivermectin får anses vara det allmånt sett effektivaste maskmedlet i denna undersokning.Vertailevatutkielma neljan loislaakeaineen vaikutuksesta muutamia tarkeita porojen loisia vastaan.Abstract in Finnish / Yhteenveto: On kokeiltu neljaa loislaakeainetta muutamia porojen tarkeinpia loisia vastaan, nimittain kurmua (Oedemagena tarandi), saulakkaa (Cephenemyia trompe), aivomatoa (Elaphostrongylus rangiferi) ja keuhkomatoa (Dictyocaulus viviparus). Edelleen on laakeaineiden vaikutus maha- ja suolistomatoihin (Trichostrongyliidit) myoskin pantu merkille. Kokeillut laakeaineet olivat Fenthion (Bayer), Mebendazole (Leo/Janssen), Fenbendazole (Hoechst) ja Ivermectin (Merck - Sharp and Dohme). Kurmua ja saulakkaa vastaan oli Ivermectin 100% tehokas, kun taas Fenthionin vaikutus oli toisessa 86 ja toisessa 100%. Fen- ja Mebendazolen vaikutus molempia loisia vastaan ei ollut merkittava. Mebendazolen ja myos Fenbendazolen vaikutus aivomatoa vastaan havaittiin hyvin korkeaksi, kun taas Ivermectinilla oli jonkin verran huonompi vaikutus valitulla annostuksella. Fenthionilla ei ollut mitaan vaikutusta tata loista vastaan. Keuhkomatoa vastaan osoitti Fenbendazole ja Ivermectin hyvan vaikutuksen, kun taas Mebendazolella oli jonkin verran heikompi vaikutus. Kuitenkaan ei millaan laakevalmisteista ollut taystehokasta vaikutusta taman loisen lepaaviin tehottomiin 5:asteen toukkiin. Fenthionilla ei ollut mitaan vaikutusta. Fenbendazole ja Ivermectin maha- ja suolistomatoja vastaan olivat 100% tehokkaita, kun taas Mebendazolella oli jonkin verran alhaisempi, osittain vaimentava vaikutus. Fenthionilla ei ollut mitaan vaikutusta

Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison

Much attention has been addressed to the question of whether Europe or the United States adopts a more precautionary stance to the regulation of potential environmental, health, and safety risks. Some commentators suggest that Europe is more risk-averse and precautionary, whereas the US is seen as more risk-taking and optimistic about the prospects for new technology. Others suggest that the US is more precautionary because its regulatory process is more legalistic and adversarial, while Europe is more lax and corporatist in its regulations. The flip-flop hypothesis claims that the US was more precautionary than Europe in the 1970s and early 1980s, and that Europe has become more precautionary since then. We examine the levels and trends in regulation of environmental, health, and safety risks since 1970. Unlike previous research, which has studied only a small set of prominent cases selected non-randomly, we develop a comprehensive list of almost 3,000 risks and code the relative stringency of regulation in Europe and the US for each of 100 risks randomly selected from that list for each year from 1970 through 2004. Our results suggest that: (a) averaging over risks, there is no significant difference in relative precaution over the period, (b) weakly consistent with the flip-flop hypothesis, there is some evidence of a modest shift toward greater relative precaution of European regulation since about 1990, although (c) there is a diversity of trends across risks, of which the most common is no change in relative precaution (including cases where Europe and the US are equally precautionary and where Europe or the US has been consistently more precautionary). The overall finding is of a mixed and diverse pattern of relative transatlantic precaution over the period

Fatal inanition in reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus): Pathological findings in completely emaciated carcasses

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

First update of the living European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema

First update of the living European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczem

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema - part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations.

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology

European integration assessed in the light of the 'rules vs. standards debate'

The interplay of various legal systems in the European Union (EU) has long triggered a debate on the tension between uniformity and diversity of Member States' (MS) laws. This debate takes place among European legal scholars and is also paralleled by economic scholars, e.g. in the ambit of the 'theory of federalism'. This paper takes an innovative perspective on the discrepancy between 'centralized' and 'decentralized' law-making in the EU by assessing it with the help of the rules versus standards debate. When should the EU legislator grant the national legislator leeway in the formulation of new laws and when should all be fixed ex ante at European level? The literature on the 'optimal shape of legal norms' shall be revisited in the light of law-making in the EU, centrally dealing with the question how much discretion shall be given to the national legislator; and under which circumstances. This paper enhances the established decisive factors for the choice of a rule or a standard in a national setting (complexity, volatility, judges' specialization and frequency of application) by two new crucial factors (switching costs and the benefit of uniformity in terms of information costs) in order to assess law-making policies at EU level

Italian S3-Guideline on the treatment of Atopic Eczema - Part 2: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations, adapted from EuroGuiDerm by the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Occupational Dermatology (SIDAPA).

SIDeMaST (Società Italiana di Dermatologia Medica, Chirurgica, Estetica e delle Malattie Sessualmente Trasmesse) contributed to the development of the present guideline on the systemic treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. With the permission of EuroGuiDerm, SIDeMaST adapted the guideline to the Italian healthcare context to supply a reliable and affordable tool to Italian physicians who take care of patients affected by atopic dermatitis. The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for pediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology

Italian S3-Guideline on the treatment of Atopic Eczema - Part 1: Systemic therapy, adapted from EuroGuiDerm by the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA).

SIDeMaST (Società Italiana di Dermatologia Medica, Chirurgica, Estetica e delle Malattie Sessualmente Trasmesse) contributed to the development of the present guideline on the systemic treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. With the permission of EuroGuiDerm, SIDeMaST adapted the guideline to the Italian healthcare context to supply a reliable and affordable tool to Italian physicians who take care of patients affected by atopic dermatitis. The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for pediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema – part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV photo- therapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietaryinterventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published sepa- rately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a sec- tion on guideline methodology. Received: 17 February 2022; Accepted: 3 June 202