Canton Candela, Canton Lucila, Domínguez María Paula, Moreno Laura, Lanusse Carlos, Alvarez Luis, Ceballos Laura
Laboratorio de Farmacología, Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil (CIVETAN), UNCPBA-CICPBA-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Campus Universitario, 7000, Tandil, Argentina.
Laboratorio de Farmacología, Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil (CIVETAN), UNCPBA-CICPBA-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Campus Universitario, 7000, Tandil, Argentina.
Vet Parasitol. 2018 May 30;256:43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.05.007. Epub 2018 May 15.
The study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) behaviour and anthelmintic efficacy against susceptible and resistant nematodes following subcutaneous (SC) and oral administration of ivermectin (IVM) to cattle. Six commercial farms were involved: Farms 1 and 2 (IVM-susceptible nematode population) and Farms 3, 4, 5 and 6 (IVM-resistant nematode population). On each farm, forty-five calves naturally infected with gastrointestinal (GI) nematodes were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 15): untreated control, IVM SC administration, and IVM oral administration (both at 0.2 mg/kg). PK assessment (plasma and faeces) was performed on Farm 1. Efficacy was determined by Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test. IVM systemic availability upon SC administration (421 ± 70.3 ng·d/mL) was higher (P < 0.05) compared to the oral treatment (132 ± 31.3 ng·d/mL). However, higher (P < 0.05) faecal IVM concentrations were observed following oral treatment (9896 ± 1931 ng·d/mL) compared to SC administration (4760 ± 924 ng·d/mL). Similar (91-93%) IVM efficacy was observed on Farms 1 and 2 by both routes. Efficacy against resistant nematodes was slightly higher on Farms 3 and 4 after the oral (63 and 82%, respectively) compared to the SC (36 and 68%, respectively) treatment. However, there was complete therapeutic failure (0% efficacy) on Farm 5 and a very low response on Farm 6 (40 and 41% for SC and oral administration, respectively). Although larger faecal concentrations following IVM oral administration may increase drug exposure of GI adult worms, this does not always improve efficacy against resistant nematodes. The potential therapeutic advantages of oral treatments should be cautiously assessed, especially in presence of anthelmintic resistance.
该研究比较了皮下注射(SC)和口服伊维菌素(IVM)给牛后,其对易感和耐药线虫的药代动力学(PK)行为及驱虫效果。研究涉及六个商业农场:农场1和2(IVM易感线虫种群)以及农场3、4、5和6(IVM耐药线虫种群)。在每个农场,将45头自然感染胃肠道(GI)线虫的犊牛随机分为三组(n = 15):未治疗对照组、IVM皮下注射组和IVM口服组(均为0.2 mg/kg)。在农场1进行了PK评估(血浆和粪便)。通过粪便虫卵计数减少试验确定疗效。皮下注射IVM后的全身可用性(421±70.3 ng·d/mL)高于口服治疗(132±31.3 ng·d/mL)(P < 0.05)。然而,口服治疗后的粪便IVM浓度(9896±1931 ng·d/mL)高于皮下注射(4760±924 ng·d/mL)(P < 0.05)。两种给药途径在农场1和2观察到相似的(91 - 93%)IVM疗效。与皮下注射治疗(分别为36%和68%)相比,口服治疗后农场3和4对耐药线虫的疗效略高(分别为63%和82%)。然而,农场5出现了完全治疗失败(0%疗效),农场6的反应非常低(皮下注射和口服给药分别为40%和41%)。尽管IVM口服后较高的粪便浓度可能会增加胃肠道成虫的药物暴露,但这并不总能提高对耐药线虫的疗效。口服治疗的潜在治疗优势应谨慎评估,尤其是在存在驱虫药耐药性的情况下。