New insights into the use of a mite count reduction test for the detection of therapeutic acaricide efficacy in Psoroptes ovis in cattle.

Acaricide resistance –Psoroptes ovis–cattle–mite count reduction test–monitoring drug efficacy

Journal

International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance
ISSN: 2211-3207
Titre abrégé: Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101576715

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2020
Historique:
received: 03 07 2020
revised: 16 09 2020
accepted: 16 09 2020
pubmed: 27 9 2020
medline: 21 8 2021
entrez: 26 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

When used for the evaluation of drug efficacy against Psoroptes ovis, the diagnostic performance of different sampling strategies for a mite count reduction test (MCRT) remains unclear. In the present study, a novel simulation framework was constructed that accounted for relevant biological features of P. ovis infestations in cattle and that was parameterized with field data from 16 farms (154 animals). Second, this framework was applied to explore the impact of study specific factors (number of animals, number of sampled lesions, and number of scrapings per lesion) and biological factors (mite infestation intensity and size of lesions) on the diagnostic performance of MCRT. Its outcome provided a basis to determine the diagnostic performance of MCRT when it was applied according to the World Association for the Advancement in Veterinary Parasitology (WAAVP) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) guidelines, and to formulate recommendations to ensure a good diagnostic performance of the MCRT. For both guidelines, the MCRT allowed to correctly detect (power 80%) reduced and normal efficacy when the therapeutic efficacy was <70%, and ≥95%, respectively. The results highlighted a reliable diagnostic performance of the MCRT when performed as recommended by WAAVP and EMA for the detection of normal drug efficacy. When used for the detection of reduced efficacy, therapeutic efficacies between 70% and 90% could not be detected with sufficient reliability. The diagnostic performance can be improved by increasing the total number of skin scrapings (increasing the number of animals, number of sampled lesions and/or number of samples per lesion). In order to help researchers and veterinarians to optimize the design of the MCRT to their field settings, the findings were translated into a simple tool.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32979706
pii: S2211-3207(20)30028-2
doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2020.09.002
pmc: PMC7519215
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Acaricides 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

62-72

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Références

Vet Parasitol. 1999 Jun 30;83(3-4):253-64
pubmed: 10423007
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Nov 15;263:18-22
pubmed: 30389019
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Apr 15;253:71-78
pubmed: 29605007
Int J Parasitol. 2014 Oct 15;44(12):955-67
pubmed: 25218570
Vet Parasitol. 2001 Jun 28;97(4):277-83
pubmed: 11390081
Vet Parasitol. 2003 Jun 25;114(4):267-84
pubmed: 12809753
Vet Parasitol. 1999 Jun 30;83(3-4):219-29
pubmed: 10423004
Vet Parasitol. 1998 Mar 31;76(1-2):137-48
pubmed: 9653998
Parasit Vectors. 2020 Mar 14;13(1):127
pubmed: 32169109
Vet Parasitol. 2012 Sep 10;188(3-4):391-6
pubmed: 22521979
Vet Parasitol. 2012 Nov 23;190(1-2):216-21
pubmed: 22717121
Vet Parasitol. 1997 May;69(3-4):319-30
pubmed: 9195741
Parasitol Res. 2002 Dec;88(12):1061-5
pubmed: 12444456
Vet Rec. 2010 Oct 9;167(15):575-6
pubmed: 21257420
J Comp Pathol. 2003 Feb-Apr;128(2-3):79-91
pubmed: 12634083
Parasitol Res. 2016 Apr;115(4):1519-28
pubmed: 26687969
Parasitol Res. 2015 Feb;114(2):535-42
pubmed: 25399813
Adv Parasitol. 2015 Mar;87:193-247
pubmed: 25765196
Med Vet Entomol. 2009 Dec;23(4):379-86
pubmed: 19941603
Vet Parasitol. 2006 Feb 28;136(1):55-66
pubmed: 16406329
Parasitol Today. 1986 Nov;2(11):302-7
pubmed: 15462743
Vet Parasitol. 2008 Nov 25;158(1-2):110-6
pubmed: 18819751
Vet Parasitol. 1992 Dec;45(1-2):147-52
pubmed: 1485416

Auteurs

Wouter van Mol (W)

Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Edwin Claerebout (E)

Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Stijn Casaert (S)

Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Peter Geldhof (P)

Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Bruno Levecke (B)

Laboratory of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820, Merelbeke, Belgium. Electronic address: bruno.levecke@ugent.be.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH