Field Evaluation of Two Different Treatment Approaches and Their Ability to Control Fleas and Prevent Canine Leishmaniosis in a Highly Endemic Area

Abstract

This study investigated the efficacy of two collars for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations. Additionally the effect of these collars on the incidence of Leishmania infantum infection as compared with a group of vaccinated dogs was evaluated. A total of 224 young dogs from private animal shelters were enrolled in April/May into four groups: G1, 55 dogs treated with 10% imidacloprid + 4.5% flumethrin collar (Seresto, Bayer Animal Health); G2, 60 dogs treated with 4% deltamethrin collar (Scalibor protector band, MSD Animal Health); G3, 54 dogs vaccinated with CaniLeish (Virbac Animal Health); and G4, 55 dogs left non-treated as controls. Dogs were followed up at days 120 (September), 210 (December), and 360 (April-May). At those time points, clinical assessments, ectoparasite counts and blood, bone marrow and skin samples, to detect the presence of L. infantum, were performed. The efficacy of Seresto in protecting dogs from flea infestation was 100% (P < 0.01) on day 120 and 210, while animals treated with Scalibor showed a prevalence of the infestation ranging from 23.3% to 33.3% on day 120 and 210, respectively. At the end of the study, the incidence of L. infantum infection in collared dogs—based on animals being positive in any of the tests—was 5.5% in Seresto-treated dogs and 20% in Scalibor-treated dogs, resulting in overall efficacy of prevention of 88.3% for Seresto and 61.8% for Scalibor. No statistical difference was detected in L. infantum positive dogs for bone marrow PCR and/or cytology at day 360 between the CaniLeish (15.4%) and non-treated control dogs (10.0%). Both collars proved to be effective (P < 0.01) in preventing L. infantum infection throughout one transmission season, whereas no significant difference was recorded in the frequency of active infections between dogs vaccinated with CaniLeish and control dogs, emphasizing the importance of using repellent/insecticide actives as a priority measure for protection against canine leishmaniosis.

Vaccine effectiveness and use of collar impregnated with insecticide for reducing incidence of Leishmania infection in dogs in an endemic region for visceral leishmaniasis, in Brazil

“…In this case, the EF of the collar was 62% and the dogs were tested by means of PCR, bone marrow smears and serology. In our study, we also used PCR and serology to detect the infection and the EF of the collars was even lower than that reported by Brianti et al [21]. This indicates that using molecular methods in addition to serology might give a more realistic estimate of the EF of the control measure in preventing infection and might explain, in addition to other epidemiological reasons, the difference in the results between this study and others.…”

Identification of trypanosomatids and blood feeding preferences of phlebotomine sand fly species common in Sicily, Southern Italy

“…To the best of our knowledge, the sole data on the prevalence infection for L. infantum in P. perniciosus in Sicily came from a study conducted in the city of Catania where a higher infection rate (i.e., 11%; 8/72) has been detected [13]. This difference may be related to the high endemicity of leishmaniosis in the area of Catania [11,13] and suggest that the risk of transmission of Leishmania can be high even in urban areas.…”

“…The island is characterized by a typical temperate climate, with mild and wet winters and hot dry summers. It is a well-known hyper-endemic region for CanL with a prevalence of infection up to 40% in dogs which are regarded as the main domestic reservoir hosts and source for human infection [10][11]. According to available entomological surveys on L. infantum vectors in Sicily, P. perniciosus has been recognized as the most abundant species, with P. neglectus and P. perfiliewi much less frequently detected [12][13][14].…”

Canine serological survey and dog culling ant its relationship with Human ­Visceral leishmaniasis in an endemic urban area.

“…Dog vaccination, whose efficacy ranges from 58.1% to 80.8%, has been considered a good alternative [51], however, there is a lack of randomized studies that might demonstrate its efficacy for general use as a measure of VL prevention [42,52]. In addition to the cost, one of the difficulties for largescale dog vaccination is the need for three initial doses, with annual boosters, a strategy that is impractical for public health programs.…”