Efficacy of pre-treatment with lufenuron for the prevention of Microsporum canis infection in a feline direct topical challenge model.

Oral lufenuron is reportedly an effective treatment for some cats with dermatophytosis. The purpose of this study was to determine if lufenuron, when used as a pre-treatment prior to challenge exposure, would be protective against the development of infection after the direct topical application of fungal macrocondia (Microsporum canis spores). Three groups (n = 6/group) of juvenile cats were treated with either monthly oral lufenuron (30 or 133 mg/kg) or placebo. After 2 months of treatment, kittens were challenged using 10(5)Microsporum canis spores applied to the skin under occlusion. Cats were examined weekly and the following data collected: Wood's lamp examination; scoring for scale/crust, erythema and induration; lesion size; and the development of satellite lesions. Fungal cultures were performed bi-weekly. All cats became infected; the infections progressed, and then regressed, in a similar fashion in all groups. There were no consistent statistically significant differences in weekly infection scores between treated and untreated cats throughout the study. Treated cats did not recover faster than untreated cats. We conclude that oral lufenuron at the dosing schedule and conditions used in this study did not prevent dermatophytosis or alter the course of infection by direct topical challenge.

Effects of lufenuron treatment in cats on the establishment and course of Microsporum canis infection following exposure to infected cats.

OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of lufenuron treatment in cats on the establishment and course of Microsporum canis infection following exposure to infected cats. DESIGN: Experimental trial. ANIMALS: 24 healthy juvenile domestic shorthair cats. PROCEDURE: 8 cats were given lufenuron PO (133 mg/cat/mo, equivalent to a dose of 100 to 130 mg/kg [45 to 59 mg/lb] at the beginning of the study and 25 to 35 mg/kg [11 to 16 mg/lb] at the end of the study), and 8 were given lufenuron SC (40 mg every 6 months). The remaining 8 were used as untreated control cats. After 4 months, cats were challenged by the introduction of cats with mild, experimentally induced M canis infection into the rooms where cats were housed. Extent of resulting infections in the naïve cats was monitored for 22 weeks by physical examination and fungal culture. RESULTS: All lufenuron-treated and control cats became infected with M canis. Cats treated with lufenuron had significantly lower infection scores, compared with control cats, during the early weeks following exposure, and there was a more prolonged initial progression phase of the infection. Once infections reached peak intensity, they resolved over similar periods in lufenuron-treated and control cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that oral or SC administration of lufenuron to cats, at the dosages used and under the conditions of this study, did not prevent establishment of dermatophytosis following exposure to infected cats. Infection was established more slowly among cats treated with lufenuron, but once established, infection resolved in approximately the same amount of time in lufenuron-treated as in control cats.

Safety and immunologic effects after inoculation of inactivated and combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccines in cats.

OBJECTIVE: To determine antidermatophyte immunologic effects of an experimental combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (CLIDV) and a commercial inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (IDV) in cats and to evaluate adverse effects associated with administration of these vaccines. ANIMALS: 20 healthy juvenile domestic shorthair cats. PROCEDURE: Cats were injected with 2 doses of CLIDV at the standard dosage or 1 dose of CLIDV at 10 times the standard dosage; IDV was administered at the manufacturer-recommended dosage. Cats were observed for illness and reactions at inoculation sites. Periodically, samples were obtained for fungal culture, lymphocyte blastogenesis test (LBT) as an indicator of cell-mediated immunity against dermatophyte antigens, and antidermatophyte IgG titers. Following vaccination, cats were challenge-exposed by topical application of Microsporum canis macroconidia and examined weekly for clinical signs of dermatophytosis. RESULTS: of 10 cats given CLIDV developed focal crusts at the injection site that resolved without treatment; these were areas of dermatophyte infection with the vaccine strain. Antidermatophyte IgG titers increased significantly with all vaccination protocols. Cellular immunity against M canis increased slightly and variably during the vaccination period and did not differ significantly between vaccinated and control cats. All cats developed dermatophyte infection after challenge exposure. Vaccination with CLIDV or IDV was associated with slightly reduced severity of initial infection. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Noculation with IDV or CLIDV did not provide prophylactic immunity against topical challenge exposure with M canis. Inoculation with either vaccine did not provide a more rapid cure of an established infection.