↓ Skip to main content

Comparative efficacy of oral administrated afoxolaner (NexGard™) and fluralaner (Bravecto™) with topically applied permethrin/imidacloprid (Advantix®) against transmission of Ehrlichia canis by…

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Comparative efficacy of oral administrated afoxolaner (NexGard™) and fluralaner (Bravecto™) with topically applied permethrin/imidacloprid (Advantix®) against transmission of Ehrlichia canis by infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks to dogs
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1636-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frans Jongejan, Dionne Crafford, Heidi Erasmus, Josephus J. Fourie, Bettina Schunack

Abstract

The ability of the topical spot-on Advantix(®) (50 % permethrin/10 % imidacloprid) to prevent transmission of Ehrlichia canis by infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks to dogs has previously been reported. The recent market introduction of chewable tablets containing the novel compounds, afoxolaner (NexGard™) and fluralaner (Bravecto™) enabled us to conduct a comparative efficacy study with respect to the ability of these three products to block transmission of E. canis by ticks to dogs. The speed of kill, immediate drop-off rate and anti-attachment efficacy of the respective products were also studied. The study was a blinded parallel group design, wherein 32 dogs were randomised into four different groups of eight dogs. Group 1 served as negative placebo control, group 2 and 3 were treated on Days 0, 28 and 56 with NexGard™ and Advantix(®), respectively. Group 4 was dosed once on Day 0 with Bravecto™. For tick efficacy assessments 50 non-infected ticks were placed onto the dogs on Days 30, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, 70, 77 and 84 and on animal tick counts were performed at 3 h, 6 h and 12 h after infestation. To evaluate the ability to block transmission of E. canis, each dog was challenged by releasing 80 adult E. canis-infected R. sanguineus ticks into their sleeping kennels on Days 31, 38, 45 and 52. The animals were monitored for clinical signs of monocytic ehrlichiosis (pyrexia and thrombocytopenia) and were tested for E. canis DNA by PCR and for specific antibodies using IFA. A dog was considered infected with E. canis if both PCR and IFA yielded positive test results up to Day 84. Mean arithmetic tick counts on dogs treated with the Advantix(®) spot-on were significantly (P < 0.0005) lower throughout the study as compared with the negative controls and was, with respect to the speed of kill and resulting onset of acaricidal efficacy, superior over NexGard™ and Bravecto™ at all time points in the 12 h period observed (3 h, 6 h and 12 h). None of the dogs treated with the Advantix(®) spot-on became infected with E. canis, whereas six out of eight untreated control dogs acquired the infection. Furthermore, E. canis infection was diagnosed in four out of eight dogs treated with NexGard™ and in two out of eight dogs treated with Bravecto™. The speed of kill of the two recently registered systemic compounds against R. sanguineus was not sufficiently fast to prevent transmission of E. canis and resulted in only low partial blocking and protection capacity while Advantix(®) effectively blocked transmission of E. canis to dogs in the challenge period and thus provided adequate protection for dogs against monocytic ehrlichiosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 23 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 03 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,124,060
of 24,736,359 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#151
of 5,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,640
of 359,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#9
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,736,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 359,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.