The human-animal bond has been a fundamental feature of mankind's history for millennia. The first, and strongest of these, man's relationship with the dog, is believed to pre-date even agriculture, going back as far as 30,000 years. It remains at least as powerful today. Fed by the changing nature of the interactions between people and their dogs worldwide and the increasing tendency towards close domesticity, the health of dogs has never played a more important role in family life. Thanks to developments in scientific understanding and diagnostic techniques, as well as changing priorities of pet owners, veterinarians are now able, and indeed expected, to play a fundamental role in the prevention and treatment of canine disease, including canine vector-borne diseases (CVBDs).The CVBDs represent a varied and complex group of diseases, including anaplasmosis, babesiosis, bartonellosis, borreliosis, dirofilariosis, ehrlichiosis, leishmaniosis, rickettsiosis and thelaziosis, with new syndromes being uncovered every year. Many of these diseases can cause serious, even life-threatening clinical conditions in dogs, with a number having zoonotic potential, affecting the human population.Today, CVBDs pose a growing global threat as they continue their spread far from their traditional geographical and temporal restraints as a result of changes in both climatic conditions and pet dog travel patterns, exposing new populations to previously unknown infectious agents and posing unprecedented challenges to veterinarians.In response to this growing threat, the CVBD World Forum, a multidisciplinary group of experts in CVBDs from around the world which meets on an annual basis, gathered in Nice (France) in 2011 to share the latest research on CVBDs and discuss the best approaches to managing these diseases around the world.As a result of these discussions, we, the members of the CVBD Forum have developed the following recommendations to veterinarians for the management of CVBDs.

BackgroundHeartworm disease in dogs can be severe and life threatening. Resistance to available heartworm preventives was considered among potential causes of increased reports of failed heartworm prevention in dogs. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of four commercially available heartworm disease preventives against the JYD-34 strain of D. immitis.MethodsForty laboratory-reared dogs approximately 6 months old were used. Each dog was infected with fifty, third-stage heartworm larvae on study day (SD) -30. On SD-1, the dogs were randomized to five groups of eight dogs each. On SD-0, dogs in groups 1–4 were treated as follows: Group 1: ivermectin/pyrantel pamoate chewable tablets; Group 2: milbemycin oxime/spinosad tablets; Group 3: selamectin topical solution; and Group 4: imidacloprid/moxidectin topical solution. Dogs in Group 5 were not treated and served as controls. The dogs were treated according to their current body weights and labelled dose banding for each product. Groups 1, 2, and 3 were retreated with their respective products and current body weights on SD 31 and 60. On SDs 124–126 the dogs were euthanized and necropsied for recovery of adult heartworms.ResultsAdult heartworms were recovered at necropsy from each of the dogs in the control group (13–32 worms/dog, geometric mean (GM) = 18.4 worms/dog). Adult heartworms and/or worm fragments were also recovered from each of the dogs treated with ivermectin/pyrantel pamoate, milbemycin oxime/spinosad or selamectin. Geometric means of worms recovered from dogs in each of these groups were 13.1, 8.8, and 13.1, resulting in efficacies compared to controls of 29.0, 52.2, and 28.8 %, respectively. All dogs in Group 4 (imidacloprid/moxidectin) were free of adult heartworms (100 % efficacy).ConclusionsThe combination of imidacloprid/moxidectin was 100 % effective in this study in preventing development of JYD-34 laboratory strain of D. immitis in dogs following a single treatment, while three monthlytreatments of the three other commercial products provided less than 100 % efficacy. The high efficacy achieved with imidacloprid/moxidectin was likely due to the unique pharmacokinetic properties of the topical formulation delivering greater and sustained drug concentrations necessary to prevent development of D. immitis larvae.

BackgroundConsidering the recent information on the increase of Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection by rapid assays in canine blood samples after heat treatment, the proposal that immune complexes block D. immitis antigen detection and that macrocyclic lactone + doxycycline (alternative protocol) might lead to increased production of those immune complexes, resulting in the erroneous diagnosis of adult worm elimination, and that there is no recommended adulticide marketed in Brazil, a study was performed to evaluate the interference of moxidectin + doxycycline (moxi-doxy) on diagnostic procedures when heartworm positive dogs are treated with this alternative protocol. Twenty-two naturally infected pet dogs were treated monthly with topical 10% imidacloprid + 2.5% moxidectin and with oral doxycycline (10 mg/kg BID/30 days) (moxi-doxy). All the dogs had their microfilaremia level determined prior to the first day of treatment, and were tested every 6 months for microfilariae (Mf) detection prior to heating, and for antigen detection prior to and after heating, the sample.ResultsThe results indicate that the treatment protocol can eliminate adult heartworms as early as 6 months after the first dose, especially in low microfilaremic dogs (< 300 Mf/ml). In this study, all dogs were free of heartworm antigen after 18–24 months of treatment. In a comparison of pre-heated samples and non-heated samples, sample pre-heating increased antigen detection sensitivity, and non-heated samples tended to be antigen-negative earlier than the pre-heated samples, especially when dogs had low microfilaremia levels. These discrepancies were not present in a subsequent sample of the same dog 6 months later.ConclusionsTwo negative antigen test results 6 months apart can be recommended as the criterion to consider when a dog has been cleared of infection. The initial microfilaremia level of a dog can be used to estimate the necessary time frame to end the treatment period.

Background Companion animal endoparasites play a substantial role in both veterinary medicine and public health. Updated epidemiological studies are necessary to identify trends in occurrence and distribution of these parasites, and their associated risk factors. This study aimed to assess the occurrence of canine endoparasites  retrospectively, using fecal flotation  test data available through participating academic veterinary parasitology diagnostic laboratories across the United States of America (USA). Methods Canine fecal flotation records from ten veterinary diagnostic laboratories located in nine states in the USA acquired from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, were included. Results A total of 4692 fecal flotation test results were obtained, with a majority comprised of client-owned dogs (3262; 69.52%), followed by research dogs (375; 8.00%), and shelter dogs (122; 2.60%). Samples from 976 (20.80%) dogs were positive for at least one parasite, and co-infections of two or more parasites were found in 3.82% (179/4692) of the samples. The five most commonly detected parasites were: Giardia sp., (8.33%; 391/4692), Ancylostomatidae (5.63%; 264/4692), Cystoisospora spp. (4.35%; 204/4692), Toxocara canis (2.49%;117/4692), and Trichuris vulpis (2.43%; 114/4692). Various other internal parasites, including gastrointestinal and respiratory nematodes, cestodes, trematodes, and protozoans were detected in less than 1% of samples. Conclusions These data illustrate the importance of parasite prevention, routine fecal screening, and treatment of pet dogs. Additionally, pet owners should be educated about general parasite prevalence, prevention, and anthelmintic treatment regimens to reduce the risks of environmental contamination and zoonotic transmission. Graphical Abstract

BackgroundCat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis, are one of the most common ectoparasites infesting dogs and their environments. This study evaluated the efficacy of imidacloprid + pyriproxyfen (PPF) (Advantage® II for Dogs) and spinosad (Comfortis®) against established C. felis populations in dogs’ simulated home environments.MethodsThirty Beagle dogs were randomly assigned to three groups of 10 dogs each and treated twice (Study Days 0 and 28) with imidacloprid + PPF, spinosad tablets, or a negative control (untreated). Dogs were housed individually in controlled simulated home environments capable of supporting the flea life cycle. Flea infestations were established in these environments by infesting each dog with 100 adult cat fleas on Study Days −21, -16 and 1. The impact of the treatments on fleas in the dogs’ environments were assessed by collecting floor mat samples from each simulated home environment, incubating them for 32 days, and counting the number of emerging adult fleas. On Study Days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 and 56, after collection of the cocoa matting samples, each dog was infested with an additional 5 ± 1 fleas to maintain the environmental infestations. Flea comb counts on dogs were conducted on Study Days 0 (pretreatment) and 63.ResultsFrom Study Days 7–28, flea infestations in the imidacloprid + PPF environments were significantly lower (p < 0.03) than those in the spinosad environments. Following the second treatment, flea infestations in all the imidacloprid + PPF environments fell to zero for the remainder of the study. In contrast, flea infestations persisted in some of the spinosad environments through the study’s end.On Study Day 63 all 10 dogs treated with imidacloprid + PPF were flea free, while only one of the 10 spinosad treated dogs was flea free. Flea counts on the other 9 spinosad treated dogs ranged from 3 to 46 fleas/dog (geometric mean = 8.6). A mean of 405 adult fleas/animal were recovered from the control dogs on Study Day 63.ConclusionFlea infestations in environments of dogs treated with imidacloprid + PPF declined more rapidly than in those containing dogs treated with spinosad. Flea infestations were completely eliminated by Study Day 56 in environments of dogs treated with imidacloprid + PPF, but persisted through the study’s end in some of environments of dogs treated with spinosad.