↓ Skip to main content

Phlebotomine mortality effect of systemic insecticides administered to dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phlebotomine mortality effect of systemic insecticides administered to dogs
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-2820-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonia Ares Gomez, Javier Lucientes Curdi, Juan Antonio Castillo Hernandez, Paz Peris Peris, Adriana Esteban Gil, Ronald Vladimir Oropeza Velasquez, Paula Ortega Hernandez, Albert Picado

Abstract

Zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) infantum is an important disease in humans and dogs. Different mammal species are reservoirs but dogs are considered to be the main one. Phlebotomine sand flies are the proven vector. Four systemic insecticides approved for their use in dogs were previously selected based on their potential to be used in endemic countries as part of the control programs of ZVL. These insecticides are proved to be safe and effective against the on-label insects and parasites, but there is no information about their activity against phlebotomine sand flies. The phlebotomine mortality of four systemic insecticides in dogs was evaluated using two randomized clinical trials. For the first trial, thirty dogs were randomly allocated into five groups: four treatments and one control, of equal size. The treatments evaluated were: Guardian®SR, Elanco (moxidectin); Comfortis®, Elanco (spinosad); Bravecto®, Merck Animal Health (fluralaner); and NexGard®, Merial (afoxolaner). Blood from dogs was taken at days 2, 4, 21 and 31 post-treatment (trial 1). The compound that showed the highest efficacy was selected for a second trial (trial 2) with 20 dogs sampled at days 0, 2, 4, 7, 14, 18, 32, 39, 51 and 84 post-treatment. Membrane feeding bioassays with Phlebotomus papatasi were used to evaluate the phlebotomine mortality efficacy of the different treatments. Phlebotomine mortality was observed every 24 h following the membrane feeding during 5 days. A mixed model for a negative binomial logistic regression, and a Cox proportional hazard mixed model were used to estimate phlebotomine mortality due to different treatments. Fluralaner was the only compound that showed significant phlebotomine mortality. Fluralaner maintained the phlebotomine mortality between 60-80% for 30 days after treatment. In trial 1 we found that fluralaner increased the risk of death by 1.9 times (95% CI: 1.02-3.6) and 1.7 times (95% CI: 1.09-2.6) at days 2 and 4 after treatment. The Cox model resulted in an increase of 1.47 (95% CI: 1.1-1.96) times in hazard risk at day 2 and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.35-2.45) at day 4 after treatment. In trial 2 we found that fluralaner increased the risk of death by 1.64 times (95% CI: 1.16-2.54) and 1.97 times (95% CI: 1.23-3.17) at days 14 and 32. The hazard risk was also increased by 1.92 (95% CI: 1.4-2.64) times at day 14 after treatment. Phlebotomine survival including all experimental days was significantly lower in the fluralaner group in both trials. A single oral treatment of fluralaner in dogs induces phlebotomine mortality. Systemic insecticides in dogs should be considered as a potential preventive measure of ZVL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,522,736
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#991
of 5,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,994
of 329,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#41
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.