Syringe immersion test as in vitro bioassay against Rhipicephalus microplus: Macrocyclic lactones dose-response relationship.

Background: For the diagnosis of tick sensitivity against different acaricides, there are in vitro and in vivo methods. The main in vivo method, the stable test, is considered a defining methodology. In Uruguay, the Rhipicephalus microplus (R. microplus) strain Mozo is used as the standard susceptible strain by the regulatory authorities. In vitro techniques applied both on adult and larvae stages are validated by FAO and can serve as an orientation diagnosis of the resistance profile developed in field conditions. An alternative was proposed as a modification of the larval immersion test (LIT), where syringes were used seeking to reduce the work necessary to perform the original technique, resulting in the syringe immersion test (SIT). Aim: The aim of this study was to expand the SIT for the characterization of sensitivity to Macrocyclic Lactones (MLs) in R. microplus and provide information on field strain sensitivity of R. microplus larvae. Methods: Log-logistic dose-response model for Ivermectin (IVM), Doramectin (DRM), and Moxidectin (MOX) were performed using concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 20.0 ppm (n = 6, 3 replicates per level on each drug). Larvae sensitivity results were determined after 24 hours of incubation at 27°C/90% RH, counting live/dead larvae. The final model will be decided as the best fit according to the model selection AIC criteria for each drug. Pharmacodynamic parameters [lower limit, slope, and effective dose at different levels (ED20, ED50, ED80, and ED95)] and its 95% confidence interval were considered for drug comparison. Results: Dose-response models were fitted for IVM, DRM, and MOX. MOX had the lowest ED50 of the three drugs, implying that MOX is of higher potency (two folds) when compared to IVM and DRM on R. microplus larvae using SIT. DRM had a different slope compared to IVM and MOX (p < 0.05), while IVM and MOX showed a similar slope (p > 0.05). Conclusion: This study allowed us to standardize the technique for larvae immersion for each ML, granting a new tool for in vitro test as a screening technique for tick sensitivity.

Is the suckling period and application pattern relevant for fluazuron against tick infestation in cows and their suckling calves?

BACKGROUND: Fluazuron is a chitin synthesis inhibitor administered as a pour-on formulation in cattle for tick control. This study analyzes under endemic tick infestation, the incidence of the pour-on application pattern on the plasma levels of fluazuron in calves and cows in the lactation period of the beef cow. Two hundred and ninety-two beef cows around parturition were treated with a commercial pour-on formulation of fluazuron at a rate of 2.5 mg/kg of body weight. A total of 4 treatments were carried out on days 0, 32, 77, and 117. At each administration time, the cows were grouped according to the pour-on administration pattern: long (~ 60 cm pour-on application surface) and short (~ 30 cm pour-on application surface). Fluazuron levels in cows and calves plasma were determined before the third and fourth application for each subgroup (n = 10) by HPLC-MS/MS. During the entire study, cow-calf pairs were maintained under field conditions and qualitatively examined for tick infestation on the day of each treatment. Both treatments (long and short) schemes were designed to prevent the annual persistence of ticks. RESULTS: No animals with presence of ticks were identified during the first 117 days of the study, except for three cows and one calf at the time of the third application (day 77). There were no differences after 40 days (day 77) post-treatment of the second application (30 ± 5 ppb vs. 28.5 ± 12 ppb, p > 0.05) and 45 days (day 117) after the third application (147 ± 55 ppb vs 140 ± 46 ppb, p > 0.05) between groups of cows treated with the long or short pour-on application, respectively. Plasma concentration of fluazuron at second and third application was increased (3.3 and 2.9 times, respectively) in calves under free suckling compared to cows. Nevertheless, both groups of cows and calves showed a significant increase in plasma concentration of fluazuron between times (4.9 times, p < 0.0001 and 2.8 times, p < 0.0001, respectively). In both groups, tick prevalence was 0% throughout the trial, except for day 77, which reached 1%. CONCLUSIONS: The main conclusions of this study were the following: 1) Different administration patterns (long vs. short) did not differ in plasma levels of fluazuron.; 2) Given that only the cows were treated and lactating calves presented higher plasma levels of fluazuron than cows, passage through milk appears to be relevant and possibly due to a cumulative effect and continuous drug intake.

Therapeutic equivalence of ivermectin 1% and two novel formulations combined of ivermectin 1% + fluazuron 12.5% for the control of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus in beef cattle from Uruguay.

Background: Novel combinations of ivermectin (IVM) and fluazuron (FLU) are presented as an alternative for the control of ticks in cattle. Applying a combination of drugs with the aim to affect different stages of the parasite's life cycle is established as a potential measure to achieve the control of ticks in cattle. Aim: To determine the therapeutic equivalence between two novel formulations of IVM 1% combined with FLU 12.5% tested on bovines naturally infested with Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Methods: Forty adult beef cattle were randomized into four groups (n = 10): IVM [1% (0.2 mg/kg)], combinations groups A and B [IVM 1% (0.2 mg/kg) + FLU 12.5% (2.5 mg/kg), each], and control [untreated]). On days 14, 27, and 49 after administration, the presence of ticks was ranked as null, low, medium, and high; a cumulative link model was adjusted to evaluate treatment response. Results: Although all groups had some animals with the presence of ticks until day 27, on day 14 IVM [odds ratios (OR) 0.013, CI95%: 0.001-0.014, p < 0.01], A (OR 0.01, CI95%: 0.00-0.07, p < 0.01) and B (OR 0.01, CI95%: 0.00-0.148, p < 0.01) groups were different when compared to the control group, unlike on day 27 where only groups A (OR 0.02, CI95%: 0.00-0.17, p < 0.01) and B (OR 0.06, CI95%: 0.00-0.46, p < 0.01) remained different from the control group. On day 49 post-administration, IVM and B did not differ from the control group, with 0.95 probability (CI95% 0.92-1.02) of high parasite burden. At day 49 post-administration, group A was the only group free of ticks (OR 0.01, CI95%: 0.00-0.13, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Pharmacotechnical differences in combined formulations should be considered in therapeutic equivalence studies.